Legal Battle Over Data Rights and Fair Practices
Judge Orrick appeared more sympathetic to claims of unjust enrichment and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), suggesting those could proceed. However, he hinted that the fraud prong of the UCL might not survive due to lack of specific evidence.
The judge noted that California Civil Code Section 1668, which voids contracts exempting parties from liability for willful misconduct, could undermine Meta’s defense if proven applicable.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Annick Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP countered Meta’s stance, arguing that maintaining a license to user data without restoring access “frustrates the fundamental purpose of the contract,” as the TOS explicitly says licenses end when users delete their content.
Massive Class and Mounting Scrutiny
Filed in September 2024, the suit claims “hundreds of thousands, if not millions” of Facebook users may have been impacted by similar hacks and Meta’s inaction. The amended complaint, lodged in June, asserts that Meta breached fiduciary duties, violated California’s UCL, and failed to act in good faith.
Meta, for its part, contends that it never promised to restore hacked accounts or offer personalized customer support. “The plaintiffs imagine promises Meta never made,” the company’s motion to dismiss stated.
