Fraley v. Facebook, Inc

Decision Date16 December 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 11–CV–01726–LHK.
Citation830 F.Supp.2d 785,40 Media L. Rep. 1222,101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1348
PartiesAngel FRALEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a corporation; and Does 1–100, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jonathan Ellsworth Davis, Robert Stephen Arns, Steven Richard Weinmann, The Arns Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan Matthew Jaffe, Jonathan Jaffe Law, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Matthew Dean Brown, Jeffrey Gutkin, Michael Graham Rhodes, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark John Tamblyn, Wexler Wallace LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) owns and operates Facebook.com, a social networking site with over 600 million members worldwide and over 153 million members in the United States. While members join Facebook.com for free, Facebook generates its revenue through the sale of advertising targeted at its users. At issue here is one of Facebook's advertising practices in particular, “Sponsored Stories,” which appear on a member's Facebook page, and which typically consist of another member's name, profile picture, and an assertion that the person “likes” the advertiser, coupled with the advertiser's logo. Sponsored Stories are generated when a member interacts with the Facebook website or affiliated sites in certain ways, such as by clicking on the “Like” button on a company's Facebook page.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Angel Fraley; Paul Wang; Susan Mainzer; J.H.D., a minor, by and through James Duval as Guardian ad Litem; and W.T., a minor, by and through Russell Tait as Guardian ad Litem (collectively Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that Facebook's Sponsored Stories violate California's Right of Publicity Statute, Civil Code § 3344; California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that Facebook unlawfully misappropriated Plaintiffs' names, photographs, likenesses, and identities for use in paid advertisements without obtaining Plaintiffs' consent. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 107–136, June 6, 2011, ECF No. 22. 1 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing lack of Article III standing, immunity under § 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mot. to Dismiss at 1–2, July 1, 2011, ECF No. 30 (“Mot.”). The Court held a hearing on this motion on September 29, 2011. Having considered the parties' submissions and argument and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following allegations are taken from the Complaint and judicially noticeable documents and are presumed to be true for purposes of ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss.2 See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 447 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006). Facebook is a free, web-based social networking site with over 153 million members in the United States. SAC ¶ 13. To join Facebook, a user must provide his or her name, age, gender, and a valid e-mail address, and agree to Facebook's terms of service. Id. at ¶ 16; Mot. at 2. Once registered, a member receives a “Profile” page, may upload a “profile photo” representing him or herself, and may establish connections with other members by approving them as Facebook “Friends.” SAC ¶¶ 17–18. In addition, Facebook allows members to share information with their Friends in a variety of ways: members may “Post” by adding text, images, videos, and hyperlinks to their own profile page, id. at ¶ 23; “Check-in” by announcing their geographical location within the feature “Places,” id. at ¶ 24; and “Like” content by clicking on a thumbs-up button that appears next to certain items on the Internet, both within Facebook.com and on external sites, id. at ¶ 25. Whenever members take one of these actions, Facebook generates a “Story,” which then appears on their Friends' “News Feed.” Id. at ¶¶ 15, 17, 20.

Facebook earns revenue primarily through the sale of targeted advertising that appears on members' Facebook pages. Id. at ¶¶ 13, 21. Plaintiffs challenge one of Facebook's advertising services in particular, known as “Sponsored Stories,” which Facebook launched on January 25, 2011, and which was enabled for all members by default. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 30. A Sponsored Story is a form of paid advertisement that appears on a member's Facebook page and that generally consists of another Friend's name, profile picture, and an assertion that the person “likes” the advertiser. A Sponsored Story may be generated whenever a member utilizes the Post, Like, or Check-in features, or uses an application or plays a game that integrates with the Facebook website, and the content relates to an advertiser in some way determined by Facebook. Id. at ¶ 26. For example, Plaintiff Angel Fraley, who registered as a member with the name Angel Frolicker, alleges that she visited Rosetta Stone's Facebook profile page and clicked the “Like” button in order to access a free software demonstration. Subsequently, her Facebook user name and profile picture, which bears her likeness, appeared on her Friends' Facebook pages in a “Sponsored Story” advertisement consisting of the Rosetta Stone logo and the sentence, Angel Frolicker likes Rosetta Stone.” Id. at ¶¶ 65–68. Plaintiffs Susan Mainzer, Paul Wang, J.H.D., and W.T. were similarly featured in “Sponsored Story” advertisements after clicking on a “Like” button on a company's website, which they did for various reasons, such as to access a special offer code for a new product, to access photographs of an event, or to become eligible for a promotional prize. Id. at ¶¶ 69–85; see also id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiffs allege that they were unaware at the time they clicked those “Like” buttons that their actions would be interpreted and publicized by Facebook as an endorsement of those advertisers, products, services, or brands. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 61. Plaintiffs further allege that members are often enticed to click on a “Like” button simply to receive discounts on products, support social causes, or to see a humorous image. Id. at ¶ 25.

Unlike ordinary “Stories” that appear in a member's News Feed, Sponsored Stories are offset along with other advertisements paid by Facebook advertisers. The SAC quotes Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explaining that [n]othing influences people more than a recommendation from a trusted friend” and that [a] trusted referral is the Holy Grail of advertising.” Id. at ¶ 43. On average, actions taken by Facebook members are shared with 130 people, the average number of friends a member has. Id. at ¶ 45. The SAC also quotes Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg stating that [m]aking your customers your marketers” is “the illusive goal we've been searching for.” Id. These beliefs about the marketing value of friend endorsements have been corroborated by the Nielsen Company, a leading marketing research firm. Id. at ¶ 42. According to Facebook, members are twice as likely to remember seeing a Sponsored Story advertisement compared to an ordinary advertisement without a Friend's endorsement and three times as likely to purchase the advertised service or product. Id. at ¶¶ 44–45. Plaintiffs therefore assert that the value of a Sponsored Story advertisement is at least twice the value of a standard Facebook.com advertisement, and that Facebook presumably profits from selling this added value to advertisers. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 47.

Plaintiffs assert that Sponsored Stories constitute “a new form of advertising which drafted millions of [Facebook members] as unpaid and unknowing spokepersons for various products,” for which they are entitled to compensation under California law. Opp'n at 1; see SAC ¶ 46. Although Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities provides that members may alter their privacy settings to “limit how your name and [Facebook] profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us,” id. at ¶ 32, members are unable to opt out of the Sponsored Stories service altogether, id. at ¶¶ 30, 34. Furthermore, although the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities provides that [y]ou give us permission to use your name and [Facebook] profile picture in connection with [commercial, sponsored, or related] content, subject to the limits you place,” id. at ¶ 32, Plaintiffs all registered for a Facebook account prior to January 25, 2011. Therefore, they could not have known about Sponsored Stories at the time they agreed to Facebook's Terms of Use, nor did Facebook ask them to review or re-affirm the Terms of Use upon introduction of the Sponsored Story advertising feature. Id. at ¶¶ 50–53.

Plaintiffs allege that Facebook's practice of misappropriating their names and likenesses for commercial endorsements without their consent (1) violated their statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344; (2) violated the UCL; and (3) unjustly enriched Facebook. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who were registered members of Facebook.com as of January 24, 2011, and whose names, photographs, likenesses, or identities associated with their account were used by Facebook in a “Sponsored Story” advertisement. SAC ¶ 95. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and other equitable relief. Id. at ¶ 136.

II. LEGAL STANDARDSA. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1)

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss tests whether a complaint alleges grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. If the plaintiff lacks...

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • Rovai v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 27, 2018
    ...policy test, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's alleged practice violates some public policy. See Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 813 (N.D. Cal 2011). This test requires that the claim "be tethered to some specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions."......
  • Doe v. Twitter, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 19, 2021
    ...images and likenesses’ by Twitter[,]" Twitter rejects that argument. Id. (citing Opposition at 29-30 (citing Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. , 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 811 (N.D. Cal. 2011) )). According to Twitter, Fraley does not support Plaintiffs’ position because in that case, the "plaintiffs alle......
  • Barrett v. Apple Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 4, 2021
    ...versions of the same document, including at least one discrepancy regarding dates. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs cite Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. , 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011), but the judicial notice dispute in Fraley involved significant discrepancies, such as whether the document at issue ......
  • Herskowitz v. Apple Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 15, 2013
    ...law. See, e.g., Low v. LinkedIn Corp., 900 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1030-31, 2012 WL 2873847, *15 (N.D.Cal.2012); Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F.Supp.2d 785, 814 (N.D.Cal.2011); accord Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10–01455, 2010 WL 3910169, at *17 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (citing Durell, 183 Cal.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • The Right Of Publicity In The AI Age
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 2, 2023
    ...50. See, e.g., Parker v. Hey, Inc., 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 609 (Cal. Sup. Ct., S.F. Cnty., Apr. 14, 2017); Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., 2011 WL 5117164 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011); Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. ......
  • Hashtagging Away Your Rights: Privacy And Publicity Rights In Social Media
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 1, 2013
    ...profit. Footnotes Christina Brinkley, More Brands Want You to Model Their Clothes, Wall St. J. (May 15, 2013) Fraley v. Facebook, 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. App. See id. (citing KNB Enterprises, 78 Cal. App. 4th (2000)). Fraley, supra note 2. The content of this article is intended to p......
9 books & journal articles
  • Privacy Issues in Consumer Protection
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume I
    • February 2, 2016
    ...the terms of the privacy policy – which clearly notified users that the website collects PII and, if a 1055. Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 795-6 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 1056. Id. at 797. 1057. Id. at 798. 1058. Id. at 788; see LaCourt v. Specific Media, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXI......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124023, 86 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 572, 2013 WL 4516819 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013), 340, 342 Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011), 323 Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 939, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124026, 2013 WL 4516806 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 201......
  • The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...courts "abandoned a harms-based approach to celebrity publicity rights in favor of an approach centered on unjust enrichment"). (111.) 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. (112.) Id. at 799. (113.) See id.; Hauf v. Life Extension Found., 547 F. Supp. 2d 771, 776-77 (WD. Mich. 2008); Dancel Compla......
  • ENJOINING NON-LIABLE PLATFORMS.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 34 No. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...information content provider."); Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 910 F. Supp. 2d 314, 318 (D.D.C. 2012). But see Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 802 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that [section] 230 does not protect the defendant because the defendant appeared to be a content provider); Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT