Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rejects Settlement In Facebook Sponsored Stories Case

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-deal dept.

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."

20 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. Why is it legal at all? by ka9dgx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why is it legal at all? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      Hence the lawsuit.

    2. Re:Why is it legal at all? by lookatmyhorse · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    3. Re:Why is it legal at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Although they really should have sent you a dollar, because at the rate the stock is falling, you won't really be able to call that "valuable consideration" much longer.

    4. Re:Why is it legal at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then change your photo to a can of coke, but keep liking and posting stories about pepsi. Once the marketing droids at pepsi keep seeing a can of coke sponsoring their product, they'll soon stop doing it. Of course substitute mcdonalds/ford/verizon or whatever evil corp has a similar competitor you choose, and you might have to get more creative with the photos too (turds for microsoft phones for example - oh, wait...), but you get the idea.

    5. Re:Why is it legal at all? by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Why is it legal at all? by oldredlion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why should Facebook get to use my..."

      http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg

    7. Re:Why is it legal at all? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:Why is it legal at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should Facebook get to use my picture to promote things I've never heard of?

      Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do.

      I don't know why you'd agree to something like that. It seems foolish to me, but you get to make your own choices.

    9. Re:Why is it legal at all? by Teun · · Score: 2
      Why should in this day and age having sex result in getting children?

      I mean like here last year there were on every 1000 teenagers 5 that had a baby, in the USofA it's 64 or so.
      Because I'm pretty sure our teenagers have the same sex drive as in other 1st. world countries this has a lot to do with education.
      Have you instructed your kids on the subject?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    10. Re:Why is it legal at all? by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 2

      If you've never heard of something, why did you say you Like it on Facebook?

  2. How much good will is worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, let me get this straight... with Facebook, we are the product since they have no tangible property other than what we feed it. The proposed class-action involves an estimated 10 x10^7 people. To make everyone happy, Facebook proposes that they pay $10 x 10^6 to third-party organizations that promote privacy. Not only are they not compensating the people, they are paying roughly a dime a head to a third party organization that has no bearing on Facebooks policies and practices.

    Us:"I don't like they way you're treating my data and my posted stories of my life"
    Facebook:"Would it make you feel better if I gave this guy you've never met 10 cents?"

    1. Re:How much good will is worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that what Google's trying to do is beneficial to society - create a giant collection of knowledge, free. Many groups have hailed it as an essential step in accessibility of previously unavailable texts.

      Facebook is selling your face as ads.

  3. Reason for rejection by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative
    TFS doesn't mention any details at all, so here's what the proposed settlement is (agreed to, I think, by both sides):

    The judge feels that Facebook's 100 million affected users may not be getting adequate compensation from this arrangement—and is pondering whether it's even possible to provide so many people with compensation.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    1. Re:Reason for rejection by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not about privacy. This isn't like Facebook lied about a product which was killing people. It's smarmy lawyers seeing a company making a mistake and getting erections at the fabulous wealth it will bring them by using a system built by lawyers for lawyers to enrich themselves acting as the functional equivalent of parasites on a host body.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Reason for rejection by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      And I think that's why the judge is raising such a fuss. It's like Facebook is withholding a feature update, pending a $20 million dollar payout to various friends (and enemies?) in the legal industry. Kinda hard to ignore!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Reason for rejection by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:Reason for rejection by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      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.

      You should have picked a better example - because product recalls due to lawsuits are pretty rare. Generally, they're either voluntary (by the manufacturer), suggested (without a lawsuit) by a third party (such as a consumer watchdog group), or imposed by the regulatory agencies you claim don't exist.

  4. isn't that enough? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    Off course that is not enough. It's facebook. All your data are belong to them.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  5. Lawyers should be sanctioned by crow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.