Judge Rejects Settlement In Facebook Sponsored Stories Case

angry tapir writes "A U.S. District Court judge has rejected a proposed settlement in a lawsuit that alleges Facebook violated users' rights by using their names and recommendations of advertisers to be publicized through a Sponsored Stories program. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in the Northern District of California by five Facebook members on behalf of as many as 100 million users of the social networking site."

Comments

Why is it legal at all?

[ka9dgx]

Why should Facebook get to use my picture to promote things I've never heard of? They get to display ads, isn't that enough?

Re:Why is it legal at all?

[lookatmyhorse]

once you upload the photo, doesn't it become FB property?

Re:Why is it legal at all?

[realityimpaired]

Facebook operates in different jurisdictions, however... and in some of those jurisdicitons, you can't give away copyright like that. In other areas (some of which overlap the first group), they can't use your image or your name without your permission.

The US has some seriously fucked up laws, when it comes to privacy, and I'm glad that the judge is calling them to task on it. Sadly, I'm not certain that the lawsuit will be as successful as it would be if it were filed in Canada, Germany, or any of the other areas where this kind of thing is *really* illegal.

Re:Why is it legal at all?

[vlm]

Because you agreed to it in exchange for the valuable consideration of access to their services.

The phrase usually used is "sufficient consideration" which is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Here's a typical Canadian release form:

http://www.capic.org/download_pdfs/Form-en-2--Model-Agreement.pdf

From talking to photographers its a widespread belief that you need to pay a Canadian model "a hundred dollars" more or less, otherwise historically judges have voided contracts for $1 or whatever. Pr0n is more expensive, I'm just talking about random glamour shots for marketing purposes, etc.

Lawyers should be sanctioned

[crow]

Clearly, this is a case where the lawyers are out to get their fees, with no regard for their clients' interests. The judge should make it clear that if the lawyers propose or accept a settlement that is not clearly within their clients' interests, then legal fees will not be included.

Re:Reason for rejection

[Trepidity]

While that's generally true, in the U.S. it's also really the only way to actually enforce a wide range of things. The European approach is to make it hard to bring class-action suits, and instead to regulate businesses' conduct directly. So for example there is an EU directive on data privacy, and there are national regulators who will go after violations.

The American approach instead is to use the adversarial court system as the primary means of regulation. If there were a suspected auto defect, for example, a European government would investigate it, and then based on the results of their investigation would issue orders to fix the problem (if real) and/or fines. In the American system, instead, it is up to people who allege they have been harmed to bring a lawsuit and prove their case in court.