Judge Rejects Settlement In Facebook Sponsored Stories Case

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rejects Settlement In Facebook Sponsored Stories Case

Posted by samzenpus on Monday August 20, 2012 @12:44AM 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."

7 of 47 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Why is it legal at all? by lookatmyhorse · 2012-08-20 00:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

once you upload the photo, doesn't it become FB property?
How much good will is worth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 01:01 · 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?"
Reason for rejection by Samantha+Wright · 2012-08-20 01:02 · 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):
- Ten million dollars to "privacy organizations"
- Ten million dollars in attorneys' fees (hoooo boy—no wonder Valve didn't want class action suits brought against them...)
- Better controls over how names and likenesses are used in advertising.
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 · 2012-08-20 01:12 · 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.
Re:Why is it legal at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 01:03 · 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.
Re:Why is it legal at all? by oldredlion · 2012-08-20 01:08 · 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
Lawyers should be sanctioned by crow · 2012-08-20 01:15 · 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.