Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Qibaa

Background

Meta alleged that Idriss Qibaa and Unlocked4Life, LLC sold unauthorized Instagram services, including services to disable accounts, reinstate disabled or restricted accounts, and artificially increase followers and other engagement. Meta alleged that the defendants used Instagram and related channels to promote these services, submitted deceptive reports that caused two accounts to be disabled, and continued accessing Meta’s services after Meta sent a cease-and-desist letter and revoked their authorization to access Facebook and Instagram.

Meta asserted two claims: breach of contract based on Instagram’s Terms of Use and violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, which prohibits unauthorized access to and use of computer data and systems. Meta sought default judgment, a permanent injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Procedural History and Jurisdiction

Meta filed the complaint on February 18, 2025, and personally served both defendants on February 25, 2025. The defendants did not respond by the March 18 deadline and did not appear. Meta requested entry of default, and the clerk entered default on March 28, 2025. Meta filed its motion for default judgment on June 30, 2025.

The magistrate judge found that the court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were alleged to be in different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The judge also found personal jurisdiction based on the defendants’ agreement to Instagram’s Terms, including its forum-selection clause, and concluded that service was proper.

Default-Judgment Analysis

Applying the seven factors used in the Ninth Circuit to evaluate default judgment, the magistrate judge concluded that most factors favored granting Meta’s motion. The defendants’ failure to participate would leave Meta without a remedy to prevent further alleged violations; Meta had adequately pleaded its claims; the requested relief was limited to injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs; the well-pleaded factual allegations were deemed admitted after default; and nothing in the record suggested that the failure to respond resulted from an excusable reason. Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against default judgment, the judge concluded that this policy did not prevent relief because the defendants refused to participate.

Claims

For the breach-of-contract claim, the magistrate judge found that the defendants agreed to Instagram’s Terms by accessing, creating, and using Instagram accounts; Meta performed by allowing their use of Instagram until it learned of the alleged breaches; the defendants breached the Terms by selling unauthorized services, misusing reporting channels, creating new accounts, and continuing to use Instagram after the cease-and-desist letter; and Meta alleged resulting damages, including investigative and enforcement expenses.

For the California statute claim, the magistrate judge found that the defendants accessed and used Instagram to promote unauthorized services after Meta sent the cease-and-desist letter and revoked their access. The judge concluded that Meta established this claim under California Penal Code section 502.

Recommended Relief

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant Meta’s motion for default judgment and enter judgment against Idriss Qibaa and Unlocked4Life, LLC. The recommendation also included a permanent injunction against the defendants and specified related persons from accessing or attempting to access Meta’s services, platforms, or computer systems; creating or maintaining Instagram accounts in violation of the Terms; violating or facilitating violations of the Terms; soliciting others to access Meta’s systems on their behalf; interfering with Meta’s systems or services; and violating California Penal Code section 502.

The magistrate judge further recommended granting Meta’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, with the amount to be established through a separate motion and supporting evidence.

Status of the Recommendation

The document is a report and recommendation because not all parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. It recommends that a district judge grant the requested relief. The document states that the parties could file objections within 14 days after service and warns that failing to object could waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. It does not state that a district judge adopted the recommendation.