High court allows suit against Facebook
Class action claims firm violated privacy law
The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for a classaction suit against Facebook by users who said the social media giant invaded their privacy and violated federal law by tracking their browsing history, then selling the information to advertisers.
The suit, filed in San Jose, involved Facebook’s former practice of leaving “cookie” tracking attachments operating after a user logged off. The cookies charted the user’s visits to other websites, which, according to the suit, were then compiled by Facebook and sold to advertisers to generate revenue.
Facebook changed the practice in September 2011 after it was revealed by an Australian blogger, Nik Cubrilovic. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with the company in 2012 — but later reopened the case, found that Facebook had violated the terms of the agreement and the privacy of its users, and imposed a record $5 billion penalty as part of a new settlement in 2019.
The classaction lawsuit, if it succeeds, could also yield substantial damages to us
ers of Facebook between May 2010 and September 2011. Filed in 2012, it was dismissed by a federal judge but reinstated in April 2020 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The court said the allegations, if proved, could show violations of California privacy law and the federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits interception of electronic communications without the user’s permission.
The Supreme Court allowed the suit to proceed Monday by denying review of Facebook’s appeal.
In its ruling last year, the appeals court said the plaintiffs had alleged that the information Facebook compiled and sold to advertisers included both their browsing history and their personal Facebook profiles, which could include their political and religious affiliations as well as their employment records.
Those profiles “would allegedly reveal an individual’s likes, dislikes, interests and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users a meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives,” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said in the 30 ruling.
Facebook argued that the users could not show any economic harm because they had not intended to sell their profiles.
But Thomas said California law allows recovery of profits from “unjust enrichment,” and noted that a study had valued individual users’ browsing history at $52 per year.
Lawyers for Facebook could not be reached for comment Monday. In their Supreme Court appeal, attorneys said the company was “deeply committed to user privacy” but did not invade anyone’s privacy by tracking its own communications with its users.
The Ninth Circuit ruling “threatens to upend common internet practices and chill the creativity that allows the internet to flourish,” Facebook told the court.
The case is Facebook vs. Perrin Akins Davis, No. 20727.