Kidstar v. Facebook, Inc.
- Sallie Kim
- 3:20-cv-05408
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Kidstar v. Facebook, Judge Kim granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint but allowed another amendment.
Samuel Kidstar’s claims against Facebook Inc. and the other named Defendants were dismissed at the pleading stage, but he was allowed to file another amended complaint.
What happened
In Samuel Kidstar v. Facebook Inc., et al., Samuel Kidstar said Facebook disabled his page and failed to recover his photographs, including photographs from 9/11 Ground Zero. He brought claims including breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and emotional distress. Facebook argued that its user agreements barred the claims.
The court found that the user agreements were part of the earlier complaint and included disclaimers that Facebook was not guaranteed to be safe or secure. In the amended complaint, Kidstar generally alleged that Facebook’s terms were unfair and that Facebook misled users about safety and customer support, but he did not clearly identify the conduct, contractual obligation, or statements involved.
The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and gave Kidstar one more opportunity to amend. Judge Sallie Kim said any new complaint must provide the required facts for contract and fraud claims, including the specific agreement, obligation, statement, or source of Facebook’s alleged duties.
The detailed version
- Kidstar v. Facebook, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-05408
- Sallie Kim
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
Samuel Kidstar alleged that he opened a Facebook account in 2004 and uploaded thousands of photographs, including photographs of himself responding to 9/11 Ground Zero. He alleged that Defendants disabled his Facebook Page in September 2016 and that his data, including those photographs, had not been recovered when he filed his complaint.
Kidstar alleged that Facebook represented its platform as a safe community for consumers and that opening a Facebook account created a contract. His claims included breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraud, promissory estoppel, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Facebook moved to dismiss the original complaint based on its User Agreements. The court granted that motion and allowed amendment. The court also stated that a New Jersey district court’s ruling that the User Agreement was valid, and that Kidstar had reasonable notice of and agreed to its terms, was the law of the case.
Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s material factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but the complaint must contain enough facts to make relief plausible rather than merely possible. The court may also consider documents incorporated into the complaint or subject to judicial notice.
Analysis
The court explained that the User Agreement barred Kidstar’s original claims to the extent they were based on an alleged promise that Facebook would keep his photographs safe. The agreement stated that Facebook would try to remain available, free of bugs, and safe, but that users used it at their own risk. It also stated that Facebook was provided “AS IS,” without express or implied warranties, and did not guarantee that Facebook would always be safe, secure, or error-free.
As to the First Amended Complaint, the court found that Kidstar’s allegations about Facebook and its terms of service were generalized. The court said it was unclear what Facebook conduct he considered unfair and how that conduct related to him. If he intended to pursue a contract claim, he needed to allege the contract’s existence, his performance or an excuse for nonperformance, Facebook’s breach, and damages. He also needed to identify the specific contract provision creating the obligation he claimed Facebook breached.
For an intentional misrepresentation claim, the court stated that Kidstar would need to allege a false statement, knowledge that it was false, an intent to induce reliance, actual and justified reliance, and resulting damage. For a claim based on failure to disclose information, he would need to allege concealment of a material fact, a duty to disclose, an intent to defraud, his lack of awareness and different conduct had he known the fact, and resulting damage. Because these claims were based on fraud, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) also required him to identify the circumstances with particularity, including who made the statement or omission, what was said or withheld, when and where it occurred, and how it was fraudulent.
The court further stated that if Kidstar claimed Facebook promised that his data and photographs would be safe, he needed to identify the agreement or the place where the promise was made. If he relied on an agreement other than the User Agreements, he needed to allege facts showing that the other agreement was valid despite the User Agreements’ integration provisions. If he claimed Facebook had a duty to tell him that it lacked customer support or a way to contact the company, he needed to identify the agreement, statement, or other source creating that duty.
Disposition
The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and provided Kidstar with leave to amend one more time. The order directed him to file a second amended complaint, if any, by April 22, 2020. The opinion states that deadline even though the order is dated March 23, 2021; the text does not explain the discrepancy.
Judge Sallie Kim also vacated the scheduled April 5, 2021 hearing because the motion was submitted without oral argument.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.