A Federal court has denied Facebook’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of users whose privacy Facebook breached when it scanned the content of their private Facebook messages to other users, for advertising purposes.
Let us repeat the salient point: Facebook was scanning the content of users’ private messages, and using it for advertising purposes.
According to the lawsuit complaint filed in the case of Campbell, et al, v. Facebook, Inc., “Contrary to its representations, “private” Facebook messages are systematically intercepted by the Company in an effort to learn the contents of the users’ communications. In the course of the last year, independent security researchers discovered that Facebook reviews the contents of its users’ private Facebook messages for purposes unrelated to the facilitation of message transmission. When a user composes a Facebook message and includes a link to a third party website (a “URL”), the Company scans the content of the Facebook message, follows the enclosed link, and searches for information to profile the message-sender’s web activity.”
Facebook countered by saying that this practice was in keeping with “the regular course of business”, and so no harm, no foul. Or, even if harm, no foul.
|Get notified of new Internet Patrol articles for free!
|Or Read Internet Patrol Articles Right in Your Inbox!
as Soon as They are Published! Only $1 a Month!
Imagine being able to read full articles right in your email, or on your phone, without ever having to click through to the website unless you want to! Just $1 a month and you can cancel at any time!
In an opinion addressing Facebook’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, that fairly skewers Facebook, Judge Phyllis Hamilton observes that Facebook had not offered a sufficient explanation of how the challenged practice falls within the ordinary course of its business, saying that “The court rejects the suggestion that any activity that generates revenue for a company should be considered within the ‘ordinary course of its business.’ At the hearing, Facebook’s counsel suggested that, because the practice is in the service of making money, it must necessarily fall within the ordinary course of business.”
Judge Hamilton rejected that notion, and most of Facebook’s motion to dismiss.
You can read the Judge’s full opinion here.
And, of course, we will keep you updated as the case moves forward.
|We know you're sick of ads on websites. But we still need to pay to keep the lights on for you. So instead of huge ads and video ads, we use smaller, plainer ads. Still, if you'd like to support the Internet Patrol but not the ads, please consider supporting us here:|
No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free? Thank you!
|Get notified of new Internet Patrol articles!