Sepaniak King v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

Adrienne Sepaniek King sued Facebook Inc. after Facebook disabled her personal account, which she had used for more than ten years. Facebook initially sent a message stating that the account had been disabled but did not give a reason. Later, Facebook said the account did not comply with its Community Standards, but it did not identify the specific violation. King alleged that she had not violated those standards.

In an earlier order, the court allowed King to file a second amended complaint asserting an implied-covenant claim based on Facebook’s failure to explain the disabling. The court had previously rejected a theory based on Facebook’s destruction of account content and had dismissed that theory with prejudice. It had also found that claims based on disabling the account were protected by the Communications Decency Act, while allowing King an opportunity to replead the explanation-related implied-covenant claim because she had not adequately alleged damages.

Claims in the Second Amended Complaint

The second amended complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. King alleged that Facebook breached its Terms of Service by disabling her account, failing to provide information needed to appeal the decision, and destroying account content. She alleged that Facebook breached the implied covenant by failing to sufficiently explain the alleged Community Standards violation and by destroying her content.

King requested specific performance, meaning a court order requiring Facebook to take particular actions. Her requested actions included providing information about the account disabling, reinstating the account and posts, and restoring her name and contact information. She also sought damages, alleging at least $100,000 based mainly on the cost and effort of recreating photographs and related comments that had been stored on Facebook.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It dismissed the contract claim because the Terms of Service stated that Facebook would inform a user if an account was suspended or terminated but did not expressly promise to provide an explanation. The court therefore concluded that King had, at most, an implied-covenant claim rather than a direct contract claim based on the failure to explain the disabling.

The court dismissed specific performance as an independent cause of action because, under California law, it is a remedy for breach of contract rather than a separate claim. The court did not decide whether specific performance itself could ultimately be a viable remedy for King’s implied-covenant claim.

The court also dismissed the damages portion of the implied-covenant claim. It found that the alleged destruction of photographs was not caused by Facebook’s failure to explain why the account was disabled. The court had previously held that the contract did not require Facebook to preserve user content and would not revisit that holding.

The court separately concluded that the alleged losses were special damages—losses arising from unusual circumstances rather than flowing directly from a breach—and that King had not alleged that Facebook knew or should have known that she used the account as her only photo repository. The court further found that the Terms of Service’s limitation-of-liability provision barred special damages, that the photographs’ alleged value was personal rather than economic, that Facebook lacked prior notice of any peculiar value, and that the claimed amount was speculative.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

The court held that King had not established damages exceeding $75,000, so the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim because the federal claim that had supplied original federal jurisdiction had been dismissed and the litigation was still at an early stage.

Judge Edward M. Chen granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case without prejudice to King’s pursuit in state court of the specific-performance request based on the implied-covenant claim concerning Facebook’s failure to explain the account disabling. The court dismissed all other claims with prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 62.