Teatotaller cafe owner wins Instagram case in court(seacoastonline.com)
seacoastonline.com
Teatotaller cafe owner wins Instagram case in court
https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2024/01/26/teatotaller-cafe-owner-wins-instagram-case-nh-supreme-court/72345276007/
88 comments
I don't get this. Why not pay an employee to take a few hours, ask a person from the necessary team to take a look, then call or write the complainant?
That -has- to be cheaper than getting all these lawyers involved over what was probably, as the article states, a glitch of some sort.
That -has- to be cheaper than getting all these lawyers involved over what was probably, as the article states, a glitch of some sort.
Once "legal" starts looking at it, it's in their hands, everyone except them and the executive team better step aside.
> In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it.
Condescending and patronizing sounds about right. "We went to Yale and Harvard, and now work for Meta, no puny coffee shop owner is going to oppose us! This should be a walk in the park". It's pretty glorious how they lost.
> In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it.
Condescending and patronizing sounds about right. "We went to Yale and Harvard, and now work for Meta, no puny coffee shop owner is going to oppose us! This should be a walk in the park". It's pretty glorious how they lost.
I’ve worked for the same Fortune 500 company for 20+ years. 99% of the time I have zero idea what team does what and whom I would even talk to find out. With nearly 100,000 employees and I have no idea how many thousands of departments and teams, I don’t think anyone really has the big picture of what everyone is doing.
It sounds like there's a job for people who knows the bird eye's view as well as the ground truth of an organization.
Thats crazy talk, what would such a role even be called?
If it were like a military thing. They'd likely be an officer, maybe even a chief of some kind.
I’m just imagining going up to somebody in the c-suite and telling them what team I work for and what I do. I guarantee they would have no idea we exist. I once sat next to the manager who is three levels above me at a lunch meeting. She had zero idea who my team was or what we did.
I think Leo de Moura was at Microsoft at the time when he was developing the Lean proof assistant. He once commented that he was fairly sure the CEO did not know the language existed or that it was being developed within MS. I found that pretty funny, and probably entirely accurate!
I'm sure it would be very similar for many generals.
[deleted]
Probably not what you are looking for, but … management? In old school firms most managers have followed a career path over different departments, learning the ropes and multiple aspects of the business and often company, building a network while growing as a person and in scale/scope. They are supposed to be able to build bridges and transcend the petty politics between teams in order to get things moving.
They used to be called Architects, but over time that name came to be associated with losing track of the ground truth.
Easy mistake to make, but architects design building.
I assume lots of glitches occur (after all they "move fast and break things") and feel if they engage with one they'll be required to engage with others. While if they just spend the effort to stonewall the few who complain they'll save money in the long run. They have billions of accounts, so what's a few to them?
That’s assuming you can even contact the necessary team. Usually your only recourse with FB is clicking through a support wizard and filling out a textbox. Then you get a final, unappealable judgement from an admin as a notification.
I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers.
I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired
I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired
I'd expect the legal team were employees, too.
They had to either fight the case, or figure out what team could actually sort this out and convince their manager to take a look.
In the unlikely event they managed the first of those tasks, the second would present an insurmountable hurdle.
They had to either fight the case, or figure out what team could actually sort this out and convince their manager to take a look.
In the unlikely event they managed the first of those tasks, the second would present an insurmountable hurdle.
even when evilCorp has their own in house team of evilLawyers, they normally hire outside evilLawyers to handle the cases at trial. in house evilLawyers might not have court/trial experience, and the type of evilLawyer that likes court/trial tend to not like office evilLawyer work. also, in house evilLawyer might not be registered in the state of the trial.
> "I'd expect the legal team were employees, too."
The article actually says this:
> "Despite Facebook hiring several law firms to defend their case, Soldati, representing himself, was able to successfully argue Meta/Facebook committed a breach of contract and that they were not immune under the Communications Decency Act"
(edited out how I originally wrongly introduced this quote)
The article actually says this:
> "Despite Facebook hiring several law firms to defend their case, Soldati, representing himself, was able to successfully argue Meta/Facebook committed a breach of contract and that they were not immune under the Communications Decency Act"
(edited out how I originally wrongly introduced this quote)
Because Meta’s support system is entirely run by automation. By bots. There’s no human. No one knew, no one noticed, no one cared.
such a cop out answer. someone wrote that bot. someone can investigate logs to see what the bot did. some PM is in charge of the people that wrote the bots. their bonuses are dependent on good reviews. anyone writing automation that doesn't leave a trail to follow wouldn't be worth much. no logging is an amateur move or the move of a guilty party. hopefully, the next case will have lawyers instead of some small shop owner fighting for their life. the lawyer might be able to convince a judge these logs need to be turned over.
all i'm seeing from the work this small business owner did with this case was to find where the loose string in the sweater is. we now just need the right people to start pulling on that string.
all i'm seeing from the work this small business owner did with this case was to find where the loose string in the sweater is. we now just need the right people to start pulling on that string.
It's kafkaesque. This happens when part of a system cannot successfully communicate with another part of the system to resolve problems, whether that's unintentional or design.
Once served with a lawsuit, most companies don't continue to rely on their publicly accessible support system.
Exactly, in comes through a separate channel (lawyers) and then actually is dealt with.
Ah, I think your reading is more correct. Thanks for clarifying :)
Agreed, it seems like a disproportionate response.
Handling the situation quietly when the court case was filed might have avoided this bad-for-Meta legal precedent. Taking it to trial seems like the most risky move, I'm interested if anyone can see Meta's legal logic here.
Handling the situation quietly when the court case was filed might have avoided this bad-for-Meta legal precedent. Taking it to trial seems like the most risky move, I'm interested if anyone can see Meta's legal logic here.
Lawyers don't get paid if the issue is resolved internally by support teams.
That’s assuming Meta has support teams. I’ve yet to see evidence of that. I once had to solve a Facebook business page issue that went unanswered for a year, and the only way I got it moving was to send a legal threat to Meta on a lawyer’s letterhead. Ended up solving the problem with a couple weeks.
Did they assume they would win?
Because Meta has billions of users and they don’t have humans look at these cases. It’s all automated.
I lost my IG account multiple times due to using a VPN. I’m a normal user. Nothing malicious. Every support request is answered by only a robot.
I lost my IG account multiple times due to using a VPN. I’m a normal user. Nothing malicious. Every support request is answered by only a robot.
Meta’s help support is a bot. Theres no human. You can’t reach a human. The only recourse you have is what this man did.
I initially read it the way you did, but OP means from Meta's side once they have received notice of legal action being initiated.
Big tech companies don't get big and stay big by hiring tons of humans to handle cases like these. Don't believe me? Try asking Google to fix a problem or Facebook or Twitter. (Apple is the exception, but they are much older and even they have issues)
It's not apples to apples. You need to pay an employee to take a few hours to handle one complaint, multiplied by number of complaints. And this is more expensive than paying lawyers a much smaller number of times.
if you consider the scale of Meta, being international and all, it probably is not. I'm sure they've run the numbers. Think in expected values, since most won't sue.
Sounds like Meta. I once had to solve a Facebook business page issue (another erroneous automated decision) that went unanswered for a year, and the only way I got it moving was to send a legal threat to Meta on a lawyer’s letterhead. Ended up solving the problem within a couple weeks.
Sounds like a lot of online platforms.
Sounds like a lot of companies. I got hit by an SUV a few months ago while I was riding my bike and the driver's insurance company said that "they weren't sure he was insured". And then, the day after I filed the police report, all of a sudden they were in a hurry to settle.
I don’t get this. There was no actual punishment for Facebook — so what will make them change their behaviour? Secondly, how can the lawyers just LIE and say he deleted his account when the company itself must have records of that. If they didn’t have the logs to prove it then they couldn’t have known he deleted it. If they did have logs they could have proven it. So they were lying. Why shouldn’t that be punished with a 100m fine or something utterly crazy? This is just bizarre every way you look at it.
Well, the punishment for Facebook is twofold: (A) they probably spent 10's of thousands on fighting this in court, and (B) it sets precedent that they are liable for this sort of thing. If they start getting sued regularly in jurisdictions all over the country, then the "pay expensive lawyers a lot a few times" vs "pay some humans to look at complaints many times" may start to come out in the consumer's favor.
I'm not a lawyer or even from the US, but is it in the power of small claims to impose a 100m fine??
from https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/docu...:
"The maximum amount you can claim in a small claims action is $10,000. If your claim exceeds $5,000, the claim will be subject to mandatory mediation."
"The maximum amount you can claim in a small claims action is $10,000. If your claim exceeds $5,000, the claim will be subject to mandatory mediation."
When lawyers are asked who are paid thousands an hour they would gladly go ten years at it.
Yes that’s why you have internal counsel that are paid a salary - to make sure external lawyers who charge for every single 6 minute block don’t run away with it because they can.
Hmm. I have a squatter on an FB name for my trademark company name.
Back in ~2006 I had a similar issue. I submitted a request to FB and I got the Page and URL. In 2019, with similar trademark issue I was rejected. This reads like I should escalate, outside of technical channels, to claim our rightfully owned name on their platform.
Back in ~2006 I had a similar issue. I submitted a request to FB and I got the Page and URL. In 2019, with similar trademark issue I was rejected. This reads like I should escalate, outside of technical channels, to claim our rightfully owned name on their platform.
So now it's right on to a woldwide class action with all the claimants who went through the process of loosing an account with all the lost media and history and emotional damages due to "computer says No" ? I know a few people who would love to jump on that.
Only for paying customers, since the fact that the cafe owner had paid for business-related services was part of what won him the lawsuit.
Could someone ELI5 this to me?
The judge found:
> The defendant provided two conflicting reasons for the deletion
Isn't this lying under oath? How is it not perjury?
The judge found:
> The defendant provided two conflicting reasons for the deletion
Isn't this lying under oath? How is it not perjury?
[deleted]
Not sure small claim uses all this machinery.
You're saying you can lie in small claims court?
the defendants have special rights in many courts.
Like what rights that are relevant here? Right to perjury?
Like the right to talk outside the penalty of perjury for their defence of course. Since small claims don't have to use actual lawyers, they are not subject to all the enforcement that lawyers are subject to, so I guess the system is not as rigorous. I suppose the discovery is mostly an artesanal process while in a real court it is a highly reagulated thing where the lawyer's ability to work in the future is on the line.
For example you don't really have a special agent interrogating the defence in a small claim court, so that's one way for perjury not to be a factor.
For example you don't really have a special agent interrogating the defence in a small claim court, so that's one way for perjury not to be a factor.
> Like the right to talk outside the penalty of perjury for their defence of course. Since small claims don't have to use actual lawyers, they are not subject to all the enforcement that lawyers are subject to
Are you just guessing? Or do you know these for a fact? It's not hard to find sources contradicting you. See [1] "Lying in any court is called perjury. It is a criminal offence."
Also, the lack of enforcement at present does not confer or imply any right, nor does it imply lack of enforcement in the future. You're conflating a ton of things which makes it hard to respond: defendant vs. others, small-claims vs. others, lack of enforcement vs. rights, etc.
> so I guess the system is not as rigorous.
I mean that would be my guess too, but we're just guessing here.
[1] https://www.smallclaimsportal.com/help/141-what-happens-if-i...
Are you just guessing? Or do you know these for a fact? It's not hard to find sources contradicting you. See [1] "Lying in any court is called perjury. It is a criminal offence."
Also, the lack of enforcement at present does not confer or imply any right, nor does it imply lack of enforcement in the future. You're conflating a ton of things which makes it hard to respond: defendant vs. others, small-claims vs. others, lack of enforcement vs. rights, etc.
> so I guess the system is not as rigorous.
I mean that would be my guess too, but we're just guessing here.
[1] https://www.smallclaimsportal.com/help/141-what-happens-if-i...
so, you had the ability to google for yourself all along?
Need to talk with this guy. They had the audacity to disable my sister’s privacy takeout so you could not see who was manipulating both her and I. Someone did a real number on her account.
Who will sue next?
This could turn into a mini-industry.
This could turn into a mini-industry.
> Soldati’s win wasn’t just a win for him, he said, but a win for all Instagram users and small business owners who have faced similar problems with the tech company.
This is just boilerplate nonsense used in every story like this.
It is false. It was purely just a win for him. Anyone else wanting to sue Meta over a deleted account will have to go through almost exactly the same thing.
The fact that Soldati may have set a precedent will at best only be a minor optimization in the entire bureaucratic mess.
This is just boilerplate nonsense used in every story like this.
It is false. It was purely just a win for him. Anyone else wanting to sue Meta over a deleted account will have to go through almost exactly the same thing.
The fact that Soldati may have set a precedent will at best only be a minor optimization in the entire bureaucratic mess.
This shows you have no idea how the US court system works.
Meta's defeat leads to a build up of case law, making it harder for meta and similar companies to win unlike class action lawsuits, which lead to nothing.
It does take time for these cases to build up the appeals process and such, but it does get there.
In short, he does win in the short term, but everyone wins in the long term.
Meta's defeat leads to a build up of case law, making it harder for meta and similar companies to win unlike class action lawsuits, which lead to nothing.
It does take time for these cases to build up the appeals process and such, but it does get there.
In short, he does win in the short term, but everyone wins in the long term.
I understand precedents. How much can it help?
The goal isn't just to win (which the guy did, after all) but not spend years.
Suppose the existence of precedent knocks it down from 6 to 3 years. That's twice better, but still poor. Most people will give up.
The goal isn't just to win (which the guy did, after all) but not spend years.
Suppose the existence of precedent knocks it down from 6 to 3 years. That's twice better, but still poor. Most people will give up.
There are billions of Meta users. If even 0.005% ever challenges Meta, that’s too much to handle for the company. So they’ll just enact better policies.
I lost my Instagram account because I was on a VPN while browsing Instagram website. Nothing malicious. Just a normal user. This is good news for users because they build up years of history and connections on these apps.
I lost my Instagram account because I was on a VPN while browsing Instagram website. Nothing malicious. Just a normal user. This is good news for users because they build up years of history and connections on these apps.
you are a non paying user, having signed a one sided t&c that also waived your right to class actions. there really is not much recourse since you weren't held against your will.
soldati was a paying customer
soldati was a paying customer
> There are billions of Meta users.
But the vast majority of them are not paying users, as this cafe owner was. At best this lawsuit sets a precedent for people who are paying for business account services. It does not help ordinary free users at all.
But the vast majority of them are not paying users, as this cafe owner was. At best this lawsuit sets a precedent for people who are paying for business account services. It does not help ordinary free users at all.
Interestingly, if you look at Reddit sub regarding Instagram, a lot of people go there for help after they've been banned erroneously. One of the top recommendations was to make a paid account for ads just to get a human to look at their request.
Insane.
I don't think Meta and Google should be allowed to ban people without anyway for innocent users to recover the account or to download their own data after a permanent ban.
Insane.
I don't think Meta and Google should be allowed to ban people without anyway for innocent users to recover the account or to download their own data after a permanent ban.
If Meta and Google had to provide actual support of the kind you describe to non-paying users, they would not be able to run their operations at scale. When the number of your users runs into nine or ten figures, even tiny error rates in your automated algorithms mean large numbers of people are being erroneously banned, and that is simply unfixable because your being able to operate at scale requires almost all of your processes to be automated. Having humans do them is simply not possible.
The only way I would ever see this getting fixed would be for them to abandon the ad-supported business model and actually charge ordinary users for their services. Whether you like it or not, "you get what you pay for" is a thing. If you are getting a service for free, you actually have no right to any kind of support. You just have to take whatever you get. Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately the only way to make sure you aren't a victim is to not trust anything you care about to these services. Which is why I don't.
The only way I would ever see this getting fixed would be for them to abandon the ad-supported business model and actually charge ordinary users for their services. Whether you like it or not, "you get what you pay for" is a thing. If you are getting a service for free, you actually have no right to any kind of support. You just have to take whatever you get. Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately the only way to make sure you aren't a victim is to not trust anything you care about to these services. Which is why I don't.
I get it. I'm not business illiterate.
However, it's still human on the other end. They know they ban a ton of users erroneously. They should have an appeals process for this. For example, maybe allow banned users to pay $1.99 to get a human review. Or provide an actual appeals process or invest in better spam detection.
In my case, it was obvious that it was a mistake. I used NordVPN, a very popular VPN, to browse Instagram.com on my laptop while logged in. Instant ban.
At the very least, banned users should be able to export their data. I had a ton of old contacts on my IG follower/following list that I lost. Impossible to get back.
However, it's still human on the other end. They know they ban a ton of users erroneously. They should have an appeals process for this. For example, maybe allow banned users to pay $1.99 to get a human review. Or provide an actual appeals process or invest in better spam detection.
In my case, it was obvious that it was a mistake. I used NordVPN, a very popular VPN, to browse Instagram.com on my laptop while logged in. Instant ban.
At the very least, banned users should be able to export their data. I had a ton of old contacts on my IG follower/following list that I lost. Impossible to get back.
Don’t conflate the concepts of user and customer. “You are a product” as a user is not an exaggeration but ground truth. They run a business, not a charity or government-subsidized public service, and their paying customers are advertisers.
If you have a problem with Big Social banning your free account, you have a problem not with Meta but with this business model being legal. Offering free “service” to collect and retain ad viewer eyeballs distorts the way market is supposed to work, because it’s impossible to compete with free and customers are locked in.
The only way out of this ever-deepening quagmire is to forbid this business model; all users should be paying customers, so the company is accountable to them, they can vote with their wallet, and the market can do its job properly.
If you have a problem with Big Social banning your free account, you have a problem not with Meta but with this business model being legal. Offering free “service” to collect and retain ad viewer eyeballs distorts the way market is supposed to work, because it’s impossible to compete with free and customers are locked in.
The only way out of this ever-deepening quagmire is to forbid this business model; all users should be paying customers, so the company is accountable to them, they can vote with their wallet, and the market can do its job properly.
> The only way out of this ever-deepening quagmire is to forbid this business model
I'm not sure this would actually fix the problem. The existing Big Social companies are so committed to this business model that I don't think they are capable of switching. I think some other company (that doesn't exist now) would have to figure out how to run the all-users-are-paying-customers business model at scale for things like search and social media. But who would run such a company? The company that was in the best position to do this, twenty or so years ago, was...Google. They had the tech resources, and they had the "Don't be evil" motto, which back then they were actually making some effort to live up to. And yet nobody there tried to get this done. Who is going to do it now?
I'm not sure this would actually fix the problem. The existing Big Social companies are so committed to this business model that I don't think they are capable of switching. I think some other company (that doesn't exist now) would have to figure out how to run the all-users-are-paying-customers business model at scale for things like search and social media. But who would run such a company? The company that was in the best position to do this, twenty or so years ago, was...Google. They had the tech resources, and they had the "Don't be evil" motto, which back then they were actually making some effort to live up to. And yet nobody there tried to get this done. Who is going to do it now?
By “forbid it” I meant “make it illegal” (not as in “big government tell everyone what to do”, but as in “let the market do its job properly”). If it’s illegal, they would have no other choice would they!
> By “forbid it” I meant “make it illegal”
Yes, I understand that.
> not as in “big government tell everyone what to do”, but as in “let the market do its job properly”
You are missing a crucial point: the current state of Big Social Media is a product of a free market. Users freely choose to take advantage of the opportunity to use these services without paying for them. "Making it illegal" would mean telling all those users that they can no longer make that choice because the government is taking it away, by passing laws that prevent Big Social Media from offering their services for free. And of course Big Social Media will play that for all it's worth in the political debate that would precede the hypothetical passage of any such law. Not to mention that such a law would also be outlawing all the other tech startups that would benefit from a "freemium" business model.
My prediction is that any such law would be taken off the table due to political pressure long before it got anywhere near actually being passed. But in any case, saying that the law is just to "let the market do its job properly" is obviously wrong. "Free market" doesn't mean you get to outlaw freely chosen transactions that you don't like.
> If it’s illegal, they would have no other choice would they!
If we assume the law you propose actually works and isn't gamed (which is already a big if), my prediction is that Big Social Media would either pivot to some new thing that they could charge for (LLM-based "AI", perhaps), or take their cash and effectively go out of business. I don't think they would just say "oh, well" and actually do the hard work it would take to make all their users paying customers.
Yes, I understand that.
> not as in “big government tell everyone what to do”, but as in “let the market do its job properly”
You are missing a crucial point: the current state of Big Social Media is a product of a free market. Users freely choose to take advantage of the opportunity to use these services without paying for them. "Making it illegal" would mean telling all those users that they can no longer make that choice because the government is taking it away, by passing laws that prevent Big Social Media from offering their services for free. And of course Big Social Media will play that for all it's worth in the political debate that would precede the hypothetical passage of any such law. Not to mention that such a law would also be outlawing all the other tech startups that would benefit from a "freemium" business model.
My prediction is that any such law would be taken off the table due to political pressure long before it got anywhere near actually being passed. But in any case, saying that the law is just to "let the market do its job properly" is obviously wrong. "Free market" doesn't mean you get to outlaw freely chosen transactions that you don't like.
> If it’s illegal, they would have no other choice would they!
If we assume the law you propose actually works and isn't gamed (which is already a big if), my prediction is that Big Social Media would either pivot to some new thing that they could charge for (LLM-based "AI", perhaps), or take their cash and effectively go out of business. I don't think they would just say "oh, well" and actually do the hard work it would take to make all their users paying customers.
I think by now, everyone knows how Meta's business model works. No need to explain it.
The point isn't that I'm a product or a customer. The point is that given the locked in data that can affect real human lives, Meta and Google ought to put more into the process of reversing erroneously banned accounts. I'm not a law expert. Regardless, it's this person who won the case has done a good thing for all Meta users.
The point isn't that I'm a product or a customer. The point is that given the locked in data that can affect real human lives, Meta and Google ought to put more into the process of reversing erroneously banned accounts. I'm not a law expert. Regardless, it's this person who won the case has done a good thing for all Meta users.
> The point is that given the locked in data that can affect real human lives, Meta and Google ought to put more into the process of reversing erroneously banned accounts.
There’s many things they could do to affect human lives better, but they have a fiscal responsibility to not spend money on that unless those humans are their paying customers.
Again, this is not a charity. This is a legal business, if you don’t like this you should fight for a change to the definition of “legal”.
There’s many things they could do to affect human lives better, but they have a fiscal responsibility to not spend money on that unless those humans are their paying customers.
Again, this is not a charity. This is a legal business, if you don’t like this you should fight for a change to the definition of “legal”.
> I'm not business illiterate.
Then why are you saying they should do something that, if you're not business illiterate, you know they can't do at scale?
> They know they ban a ton of users erroneously.
Yes. And they also know...
> They should have an appeals process for this.
...that anything like this that involves humans will not scale. That's why they don't do it: because they can't and still operate at scale.
> banned users should be able to export their data.
Which, again, they cannot support at scale.
Again, the only way this could ever be fixed would be for Meta and Google (and others) to abandon the ad-supported business model. But the only way that will ever happen is if they lose enough users to get their attention. In other words, stop feeding the monster. Complaining that the monster is bad and is doing bad things is pointless now.
> Impossible to get back.
Which, unfortunately, is why you shouldn't depend on them to store such data in the first place.
Then why are you saying they should do something that, if you're not business illiterate, you know they can't do at scale?
> They know they ban a ton of users erroneously.
Yes. And they also know...
> They should have an appeals process for this.
...that anything like this that involves humans will not scale. That's why they don't do it: because they can't and still operate at scale.
> banned users should be able to export their data.
Which, again, they cannot support at scale.
Again, the only way this could ever be fixed would be for Meta and Google (and others) to abandon the ad-supported business model. But the only way that will ever happen is if they lose enough users to get their attention. In other words, stop feeding the monster. Complaining that the monster is bad and is doing bad things is pointless now.
> Impossible to get back.
Which, unfortunately, is why you shouldn't depend on them to store such data in the first place.
> This shows you have no idea how the US court system works. Meta's defeat leads to a build up of case law...
In many states, precedent can't be set in a small claims court.
In many states, precedent can't be set in a small claims court.
class action suits don’t contribute to case law?
> Meta also argued it was immune to any cases brought against them under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is often used to obtain immunity from claims involving the publishing or deletion of material on its platforms.
A crack in Section 230. Nice!
A crack in Section 230. Nice!
A crack in Section 230 would be disastrous.
But this doesn't look like a crack at all, and IG never tried to claim that they had deliberately chosen to delete the account. That might even have pushed it under Section 230!
But this doesn't look like a crack at all, and IG never tried to claim that they had deliberately chosen to delete the account. That might even have pushed it under Section 230!
It was a pretty shitty defence. Facebook were trying to argue that Section 230 somehow gave them immunity from their own terms and conditions.
Let alone a contract with payments involved. Too bad they weren't hit with tortious interference.
That’s a stretch, but wow, that would be interesting!
I assume by “they” you mean FB/IG. They aren’t the ones who filed suit, so it’s a hard case to make. But I do feel there’s an implicit contract.
I assume by “they” you mean FB/IG. They aren’t the ones who filed suit, so it’s a hard case to make. But I do feel there’s an implicit contract.
Did you read the article?
Literally their first defense was that the user had deleted the account themselves
"In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it.
Gary Burt, a Manchester lawyer who represented Meta in the New Hampshire Supreme Court as well as the Dover District Court, did not immediately respond to a request to comment for this story."
So I looked him up and he looks like an affable chap. /s
https://www.primmer.com/attorney/gary-m.-burt
Gary Burt, a Manchester lawyer who represented Meta in the New Hampshire Supreme Court as well as the Dover District Court, did not immediately respond to a request to comment for this story."
So I looked him up and he looks like an affable chap. /s
https://www.primmer.com/attorney/gary-m.-burt
Yeah, he looks really friendly.
According to that page, he has defended both a "landlord in a million dollar lead paint claim" and an "oil delivery company against a million dollar pollution claim".
I'm sure he's a lovely person though.
According to that page, he has defended both a "landlord in a million dollar lead paint claim" and an "oil delivery company against a million dollar pollution claim".
I'm sure he's a lovely person though.
Reminds me of the West Wing conversation between Josh and Sam.
> What are you doing?
> Protecting oil companies from litigation. They're our client. They don't lose legal protection because they make a lot of money.
> I can't believe no one ever wrote a folk song about that.
> What are you doing?
> Protecting oil companies from litigation. They're our client. They don't lose legal protection because they make a lot of money.
> I can't believe no one ever wrote a folk song about that.
Was fun to see a “VCard” link, haven’t even heard that word in like 15 years.
Very impressive going up against Meta's army of lawyers.