User:Richardchao/YoungVFacebook
Young v. Facebook, Inc. was a Pro Se deprivation of civil rights case following the termination of the plaintiff's account by the social network Facebook. The plaintiff Karen Beth Young filed the complaint alleging that Facebook violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was negligent in dealing with her appeals, and committed fraud. Facebook, Inc. motioned to dismiss the claim and on October 25, 2010, judge Jeremy Fogel granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. [1]
Facts[edit]
Karen Beth Young, of Maryland, suffers from bipolar disorder and created an account on Facebook in February 2010 in order to connect with friends, family, and strangers [2] Young's mother and sister were both fighting breast cancer at the time and Young created two pages to spread cancer awareness; these pages were both published legitimately [2]. However, she quickly amassed over 4,000 friends through sending friend invites to strangers whom she felt would be interested. [3]. Young then came across a page praying for the death of U.S. President Barack Obama, which she spoke out against. The plaintiff was then subjected to "hatred, violence, discrimination, threats, pornography, kkk, violence and personal attacks" [2]. In conjunction with her public opposition of the hate page and her allegedly "spammy" activity, her profile was disabled.
Young then traveled from Maryland to Facebook's headquarters in California and sought reactivation of her account. Young stated that she did not receive adequate "human interaction" [2] yet reported a discussion with a receptionist [3]. She filled out a complaint form, traveled back to Maryland, and discovered her account was reinstated. According to Facebook, Young once again engaged in activity that violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities [4] which resulted in permanent termination of her account. Young then drove back to California to file a lawsuit in the district court in Northern California.
Proceedings[edit]
Young sought 3 causes of action, accusing Facebook of:
- Violating her First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
- Breach of contract
- Breach of Implied Covenant of Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence, and Fraud
Civil Rights Violation[edit]
Young argued that Facebook deprived her of equal protection under the law by terminating her account and sought to state this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She pointed out her disability and attempted to claim Facebook as a government actor and acted "under color of state law". She stated that Facebook hosted the profiles of several State and government departments, demonstrating a contract between Facebook and the state [2].
However, Facebook argued that it was a private entity, and the Court agreed stating "Young shows no relationship between Facebook’s government contracts and the particular actions that she alleges violated her rights"[1]
Breach of Contract[edit]
Young referenced Facebook's own Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that forbids users against posting content that is "hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity"[5] and claims that Facebook acted in "deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff."[2].
However, Facebook expressly disclaims itself of any policing of content in its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities[6]. The court agreed and stated "while these provisions place restrictions on users’ behavior, they do not create affirmative obligations."[1]
Breach of Implied Covenant of Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence, and Fraud[edit]
Young claimed that Facebook broke the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide the adequate safety services it advertised and by ultimately deactivating the account without "human interaction"[7].
Facebook claimed that it never agreed to provide safety services and that the covenant of good faith could not alter that fact[4]. Furthermore, Facebook was also protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which provides immunity for Internet Service Providers who publish information generated by third parties[8]
The Court sided with Facebook on this point as well, stating that Facebook had sent Young an email notifying her of the account termination, in accordance with its policies, upholding its contract[1]
Holding[edit]
Judge Jeremy Fogel and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook's motion to dismiss the claim with leave to amend[1].
References[edit]
- ^ a b c d e Judge Fogel's Opinion, (N.D. Ca. 2010).
- ^ a b c d e f Young v. Facebook Original Complaint, (N.D. Ca. 2010).
- ^ a b [1] Kashmir Hill, Forbes.com, (Sep. 1, 2010).
- ^ a b Motion to Dismiss by Facebook.
- ^ "Pat Murphy, Legalnews.com"
- ^ "Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities"
- ^ Evan Brown, Facebook victorious in lawsuit brought by kicked-off user
- ^ "[[[Title 47 of the United States Code|47 U.S.C.]] § 230"]
Category:United States Internet case law Category:2010 in case law Category:Facebook