Facebook Faulted By Judge For 'Troubling Theme' In Privacy Case (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Bloomberg: A judge scolded Facebook for misconstruing his own rulings as he ordered the company to face a high-stakes trial accusing it of violating user privacy. The social media giant has misinterpreted prior court orders by continuing to assert the "faulty proposition" that users can't win their lawsuit under an Illinois biometric privacy law without proving an "actual injury," U.S. District Judge James Donato said in a ruling Monday. Likewise, the company's argument that it's immune from having to pay a minimum of $1,000, and as much as $5,000, for each violation of the law is "not a sound proposition," he said. Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the damages in play at a jury trial set for July 9 in San Francisco could easily reach into the billions of dollars for the millions of users whose photos were allegedly scanned without consent. Apart from his concerns about the "troubling theme" in Facebook's legal arguments, Donato ruled a trial must go forward because there are multiple factual issues in dispute, including a sharp disagreement over how the company's photo-tagging software processes human faces.

Comments

fry 'em to a crisp.

[Anonymous Coward]

we can all use an extra $3 in our pockets.

(the lawyers would get the rest, of course.. but hey, so long as it's enough to sting mark where it counts, that's all that really matters).

Re:fry 'em to a crisp.

[Joce640k]

Who's the "Dumb fuck" now, Zuck?

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Did I get that right?

[Opportunist]

Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?

Re:Did I get that right?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Sounds like what FB said was "We think the judge is wrong."

Which, much as the judge may dislike it, is NOT illegal.

No opinions as to whether FB is correct about the law, or not. I haven't read the law, and am not lawyer enough to know whether the law says what this group of lawyers (FB's) says is correct, or whether the other group of lawyers (plaintiffs'?) is correct, since legalese is a highly specialized version of the language, where words may or may not mean the same thing as they do to the rest of us....

Re:Did I get that right?

[Nidi62]

Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?

It's the Uber defense

Re:Did I get that right?

[rmdingler]

Powerful people (and corporations) do not retain elite legal representation solely to interpret the law for them.

They retain the best attorneys to advise them how best to accomplish their goals despite the laws.

Re: Did I get that right?

[burtosis]

And they are only successful if the laws are not written well or correctly.

And that, my friend, is why companies pay lobbiests to write the laws that hold themselves accountable. Politicans cut and paste them then vote for thier monied interests over those unwashed sniveling constituents. Often paying both sides of the isle for maximum lawbricution to pass the bills.

Re:Did I get that right?

[HiThere]

One thing you shouldn't do if you want to keep it away from a jury is piss off the judge.

Only about FB users?

[Teun]

We non-FB addicts are also scanned when some dupe posts a tagged picture of the innocent.
Which in my view is much more serious, the poster should also be charged.