Because Facebook is so many things that are not in the interest of users, their "Sponsored Stories" program is hardly noticeable. However, Sponsored stories shows why many people are burned Facebook. The Facebook user preferences collected through its semantic ambiguity "as" and then uses this data to display advertisements to friends of users with a guarantee apparent. Use my preferences does not help to continue my relationship with my friends, but the implicit support is designed to allow my friends to investigate advertisements, increase the credibility of the advertiser and the benefits of Facebook. Sponsored Stories creates a zero-sum game: I, as a user, it n 'There is probably nothing of value from the public presentation of my implicit support (at least, it could affect my position with my friends), but Facebook and its advertisers benefit.

My answer to deploy Sponsored Stories Facebook was quick and decisive: not "as" any company on Facebook or doing any other activity on Facebook that I think can trigger a story sponsored. (I also categorically refuse to be part of Facebook Sponsored stories if we really decide what I want to share with my friends, but Facebook does not work). But if I make a recommendation to trade my friends - something I do occasionally - I just share it directly into my status report. This way I can control the message to be delivered to my friends instead of letting the advertisers Facebook or control how they communicate my interest to my friends. And zero-sum nature of the supply of Facebook opens a large gap in my relationship with Facebook, so I'm less likely to use Facebook in general, and more receptive to alternatives.

For me, the market response is appropriate. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in Fraley v. Facebook, however, stories Sponsored gives another reason for a party to the dispute. Surprisingly, unlike many other "private life" lawsuits against Internet companies, the claim survives the motion to dismiss -. "Feature" significantly increase the likelihood of Facebook going to do a check for this call

is a rich and interesting opinion by Judge Koh (embedded below) that has something for everyone "as" (or disgust). Highlights:

Article III standing

In a decision that a U.S. dollar mini-trend, the judge Koh maintains a constant challenge to Article III. She said that the breach of a statutory right (in this case, the bill of rights of publicity of California) automatically satisfies the actual damage of Article III standing. The plaintiffs have also satisfied the "particularized" and "concrete" to the requirements of Article III, sponsored by stories explain how the function uses your information.

defense is explicitly distinguished from many victories Article III secondary (including its own iPhone app recent court decisions and LinkedIn c.) to indicate the specific nature of the plaintiffs claim the rights of publicity. In this case, unlike the others, the plaintiffs claim that their support was a commercial value to help sell products to others, compared to the situation in the previous cases in which the market value of a user's data came from marketing theory better than the user himself / herself. She said:

plaintiffs here do not claim that their personal stories of navigation have an economic value to advertisers wishing to target ads to plaintiffs themselves, or their demographic information has economic value for marketing general and for the analysis. On the contrary, claim that their individual and personal approval of the products, services and brands with friends and have a specific value is found in the economy, which can be measured by the added benefit of gains from the sale of Facebook stories sponsored by compared to its regular advertising sales.

said:

complainants say they have an interest in tangible personal support of advertising products to their Facebook friends Facebook, and was illegally profit from the transaction without the consent of the right legal publicity seekers. Therefore, in the same way that celebrities suffer economic harm, when the image is misused by another person for commercial purposes, without compensation, plaintiffs allege they were injured by the failure of Facebook compensate them for the use of their personal notes, because "[i] n essence, the applicants are well known for his friends."

Clearly, Judge Koh is an intellectual movement difficult, and I'm sure you'll do some privacy advocates unhappy. There is certainly a market value of the information about an individual in order to improve the marketing of that person, and no value, no doubt, is a consumer commercial endorsements. It is difficult to recognize an asset and not the other. (Of course, in many previous cases, there was only the possibility of data loss, there was not really a sign that sellers had purchased the filter data for commercial re-use).

However, the judge begins Luxury Koh footwork open only a very small hole in the jurisprudence of Article III. His only exception is when there is a legal publication to claim their rights, and only when the defendant made a reconnaissance commercially motivated. I'm sure we'll see progress claims for plaintiffs to take this decision, but some complainants can style their demands accordingly.

In another complicated intellectual movement, Judge Cohen v. Koh distinguishes Facebook, dismissing a claim based on publicity rights in Facebook "Friend Finder" service, as this case demonstrates a direct link between the back of his friend and business value from Facebook. It also means that lawyers have done a better job here than Cohen. I do not understand this distinction although the judge Koh desire to achieve a different result without worrying precedent Cohen.

47 USC 230

230 Defense

Facebook is complicated. First, it tries to invoke the defense against publicity rights claim, the 9th Circuit said it was perfectly possible 10 c. CCBill Playing in a controversial law which was rejected by a court outside the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh does not touch the subject.

Second

, 230 Facebook seeks the protection of ad copy is automatically created. The announcement is based on a user action, the "Like" and several pieces of content to users, but Facebook is all in a package that the user never sees, blesses or even necessarily want. We had some other cases, the defense of 230, when a service provider so intimately related to the creation of the final content, as Carafano, but Facebook is clearly playing on the edge of legal immunity.

Koh

court rules that Facebook is on the line and not get immunity. Unfortunately, it does not say that Facebook is the provider of the information content of the advertisement. It refers to operating expenses:

The complaint alleges that Facebook creates is misleading interpretations "actions such as clicking on an" As members of the "button on the page of the company, in the words" the applicant wishes to [Mark ] "and also the combination of text with the applicant's photo, the logo of the company, and the label" Sponsored history. " ... The plaintiffs allege that they have no control over whether to publish the name of a particular company or logo, and that Facebook retains exclusive control of the display or not a story at all sponsored.

Personally, I would be more sensitive to the position if Facebook users had specific capabilities "as" one page business without also allow sponsored history. Because Facebook controls are not granular enough, Facebook automatically interpret a "like" as much as a statement of the attitude of users and as a green light to create the story sponsored. On the contrary, I imagine that when a user "liked" one page business, Facebook history to prepare a text ad sponsored, presented to the user, and asked the user if the user wants to publish the The notice of his / her friends. At this point, I feel much stronger than the text of the announcement was actually the words of the user. Of course, Facebook does not offer users this level of control over words in their mouths.

other hand, consider an example of a website publishes two UGC on your site and labor content to other sites. It is my position that the site receives 230, both acts of publication, but the user never explicitly green light to hold (as long as the license user-to-site allows the association ). See, for example, Prickett v. InfoUSA. Based on Judge Koh explanation, I do not know exactly why Facebook has crossed the line 230, while some of these other situations, probably not.

Facebook responded that their activities do not become a content provider, but only represents the traditional functions of writing. The court rejected the argument, citing the load:

The complaint alleges that Facebook is not just rearrange the text and images provided by the members, but also by the combination of these contents in a special way with logos of third parties, Facebook changed the character of the applicants words, photographs and stock in a commercial endorsement who has not consented.

In the context of this case, I do not see the point. Unfortunately, the wording of the notice of the determination to give false hope to many plaintiffs who claim that the page display third party web content support is not allowed. It will sometimes burst the bubble of the plaintiffs about a new exception to 230.


claim legal publicity of Human Rights (California Civil Code 3344) Facebook had some cracks in the trial, all of which were successful:

Find best price for : --Sponsored----Cohen----iPhone----Stories----Facebook--