Kemp v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Background

Bobby M Kemp, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Meta Platforms Inc. He alleged that Meta’s large language model accessed private communications he sent or received through Facebook Messenger, Instagram Direct Messenger, and WhatsApp. He also alleged that an artificial-intelligence machine integrated into those applications monitored and intercepted his communications. He claimed that Meta used the information to generate inferences for advertising sales.

Kemp asserted claims under the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act, and Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. Meta moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Meta also asked the court to take judicial notice, meaning formally accept as public records, filings and orders from Kemp’s earlier related case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, No. 6:22-cv-00433-RBD-LHP.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted Meta’s requests for judicial notice because the documents were filings and orders in another court case and were matters of public record.

Meta argued that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, barred the new case. Claim preclusion prevents a party from pursuing in a later case claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier case. The court explained that it applies when the earlier and later cases involve the same claim, the earlier case ended in a final judgment on the merits, and the parties are identical or legally related. The court found that the parties were identical.

The court also found that the two cases arose from the same core set of facts. Both involved allegations that Meta’s artificial-intelligence technology intercepted or accessed Kemp’s private communications on Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp between 2015 and 2021. The court rejected Kemp’s argument that his Stored Communications Act allegations were new, finding that his earlier case had also alleged that Meta accessed stored communications during that period, including through its artificial-intelligence machine. The court further stated that the Florida constitutional claim was barred even though Kemp had not asserted it earlier, because claim preclusion also covers claims that could have been brought in the earlier case.

The court determined that the earlier case ended in a final judgment on the merits. It explained that a dismissal for failure to state a claim generally counts as a merits judgment for claim-preclusion purposes, and that the earlier dismissal was treated as having been with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The earlier case had not been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a required party. Instead, it had been dismissed because the cited statutes did not provide a private right to sue or because the allegations did not satisfy the required elements of the claims.

Disposition

The court concluded that claim preclusion barred Kemp’s claims. It granted Meta’s motion to dismiss and Meta’s requests for judicial notice. The case was dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The court did not address Meta’s alternative arguments that the claims were untimely or failed to state a claim for other reasons.

Classification Note

This is classified as a procedural order because the court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the rule governing failure to state a claim, and the specified classification rules treat Rule 12 dismissals as procedural orders.