California Business Litigation Blog

Another chapter recently opened in the Facebook lawsuit chronicle. The plot of this latest litigious episode pits the popular social media site against a large class of angry litigants.

A comprehensive research study is the apparent catalyst of controversy. Authored by Tilburg University researcher Arnold Roosendaal, the report revealed that Facebook uses its famous “Like” button to track unsuspecting web surfers’ online activity. CLICK HERE to download report.

The piece also posited that Facebook discerns member identities via cookies that are covertly installed while users visit sites that display the “Like” icon. IP addresses thereby obtained are purportedly used to track Facebook members’ online activity.

Further research disclosed that similar cookies are also installed on non-members’ computers by sites that feature the “Facebook Connect” login platform. Intercepted data is then used to track subsequent visits to participating sites.

Personal privacy is the crux of the most recent Facebook litigation. The plaintiffs (California residents Ryan Ung, Chi Cheng and Alice Rosen ) assert that Facebook violated the reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s personal web-browsing history.

Another Facebook lawsuit was recently dismissed with leave to refile. The suit alleged that Facebook surreptitiously transmitted users’ personal data to online marketers via embedded header codes. Virtual advertisers obtained Facebook users’ names, ages, gender, and other personal data without prior user consent. This practice was in clear violation of Facebook’s stated privacy rules.

Yet another case in the long line of social media lawsuits against Facebook is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-appellants are protesting a Facebook lawsuit settlement stemming from Facebook’s unauthorized dissemination of members’ e-commerce transactions.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Twitter and Google also admit to tracking web users’ surfing activities without the prior activation of a widget or icon. Google and Facebook both claimed to “anonymize” such compiled data, however.

Such assertions are akin to a former President’s admission of having smoked marijuana without inhaling. Why would social network sites expend considerable resources to furtively capture personal identifying data - to accomplishing nothing except its nullification by “anonymization?“

The online community must actively oppose practices that compromise personal security through pervasive invasions of individual privacy. Given the overall litigious climate in contemporary American society, social media lawsuits may be the most effective ammunition in the battle against Big Brother.

Indisputably, the internet’s vast commercial and informational capabilities serve many beneficial functions. Effective checks and balances are essential, however. Moderation is the best means of maintaining the best balance between personal and pecuniary freedoms.

Continue reading "Facebook Lawsuit Forces Fans to Face the Facts " »

Last month, a Philadelphia state court‘s reversal of a six-year-old kindergartener’s expulsion sparked renewed controversy over school rules and school district law.

The preschooler was expelled from the First Philadelphia Charter School for Literacy for touching his teacher’s thighs. Court documents quoted the boy as saying that he only wanted to “make them feel better” after the teacher complained of leg pain.

A Philadelphia Common Court of Pleas recently agreed. In a May 23 ruling, Honorable Paul P. Panepinto found that the child only intended to comfort his teacher.

The heart of legal contention lies in the question of whether charter schools should have greater legal license in student discipline than other institutions. Arguing in the affirmative, charter school operators cite students’ ability to resume instruction at public schools following expulsion from charter facilities.

Critics charge that such a double standard is legally impermissible, however.

History of Disruption?

Court documents revealed three prior expulsions during the plaintiff‘s enrollment. The first occurred last December after the boy touched a female classmate’s buttocks beneath a table while attempting to retrieve mislaid crayons.

He was suspended on two subsequent occasions for allegedly tripping, shoving, or stepping on the toes of other children. According to legal pleadings, the child was a habitual disciplinary problem. One staff member ranked his disruptive behavior as “8” on a scale of 1 to 10.

Judge Panepinto limited his focus to the thigh-touching incident in ruling that the boy’s final expulsion last March was an abuse of school officials’ discretion. In so finding, the court opined that such conduct was developmentally normal.

School officials view the matter much more seriously, however. In court briefs, school district attorneys posited that touching an adult teacher’s upper thighs was inappropriate conduct in a classroom.

The current posture of the case is pending mandatory court mediation. Absent a satisfactory settlement, it will advance to the Commonwealth Court. Meanwhile, the kindergartner is enrolled in a private school where he has reportedly presented no major behavioral problems.

Broader questions of education law and/or school district law loom large in the backdrop of this litigation, as charter schools proliferate across the nation. In this writer’s view, uniformity is in the best long-term interests of our nation’s youth. Mere piecemeal accountability leaves them at the mercy of capricious school authorities.

Continue reading "Kindergartener’s Expulsion Prompts Educational and Legal Controversy " »

Earlier this month, a former Bourne, Massachusetts firefighter filed suit against the Town and municipal administrator, his former employer and a municipal administrative official in a Boston federal court. Former firefighter Richard Doherty alleged that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by terminating his employment after he posted certain comments on Facebook.

The 47-year-old Mattapoisett resident had been a Bourne Fire Department paramedic and firefighter for 16 years prior to his dismissal last February.

Doherty was quoted as having posited that recovering his employment and reputation were his primary motivations for commencing the litigation. Doherty’s grim observation that “[I] have a family to take care of” also echoed apparent pecuniary considerations. Doherty’s claims include back pay, reinstatement, legal fees, and compensation for emotional distress.

The main point of contention in the case seems to center around the alleged retaliatory motive underlying Doherty’s discharge. Per court pleadings, Town officials allegedly violated Doherty’s First Amendment free speech rights by firing him in retaliation for private postings he made on his personal Facebook page.

Ostensibly, Doherty’s remarks were highly critical of various practices and issues of concern within fire department. A representative speaking on behalf of Doherty’s attorney likened such commentary to a worker who vents by steam about his or her employment conditions while visiting a local bar. The lawyer observed quite aptly that such utterances have traditionally constituted legally protected speech.

The Town’s termination ruling found that Doherty’s posts “ridiculed and disparaged” various police and fire department officials. Doherty says that he was mainly concerned about his fellow firemens’ safety and welfare, as the department took a lackadaisical approach to such issues.

This case is reminiscent of the old adage, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Historically, First Amendment Free Speech rights have been the “holiest of holies” in American jurisprudence. Courts have been justifiably reluctant to limit the free expression of diverse ideologies and opinions.

Some contexts do constitute legally valid prior restraints on free speech, however. A famous example is a man’s false scream of “fire” in a crowded theater.

Case law analysis portends that the ultimate outcome of this case will likely hinge upon the court’s factual findings of Doherty’s true motivation for the disputed postings.

If the court finds his primary motivation to have been legitimate concern over vital matters of public interest, he will likely prevail. If, however, it finds his motivations were personal, he may be left without legal recourse.