Cook v. Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc.

Background

Jennifer L. Cook is an artist who created copyrighted sculptures and sold them online, though not on Facebook. She alleged that third-party advertisers posted Facebook advertisements using photographs of her sculptures, their names, and descriptions of them. She further alleged that Meta allowed the advertisements and helped advertisers target them to particular audiences, despite being informed of the alleged copyright infringement.

According to Cook, the advertisers sold poor-quality copies of her original work or provided no product. Some customers contacted Cook after receiving knockoffs and requested refunds. In her amended complaint, Cook narrowed her Lanham Act theory. She alleged that some advertisements used enough identifying information about her sculptures to make consumers believe the advertisers were selling Cook’s products, causing confusion about the products’ quality and leading customers to direct complaints to her.

Motion and Legal Standard

Meta moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint. The only claim at issue was Cook’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, part of the Lanham Act. To state a false-designation-of-origin claim under § 1125(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff must allege that the defendant used in commerce a word, designation, description, or representation that was likely to confuse or deceive consumers about the goods’ sponsorship, affiliation, or origin.

Court’s Analysis

Meta argued that Cook had not adequately alleged that Meta itself used her marks. The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It explained that courts have held a defendant need not directly sell the goods to be liable under the Lanham Act; participation in a distribution chain or another significant act of commerce may be enough. The court found that Cook plausibly alleged such participation through Meta’s audience-specific targeted advertising.

The court also found that Meta had not shown that service providers can never be directly liable under the Lanham Act for users’ conduct. The court distinguished the cases Meta cited because they did not appear to involve the same kind of active participation in distributing allegedly infringing marks or images. The court found a similar prior case did not establish that the conduct alleged here could not qualify as “use.” It also noted that Cook plausibly alleged Meta’s lenient treatment of copyright-infringing advertisements made Facebook attractive to advertisers who infringed copyrights.

Meta separately argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. barred Cook’s claim. The court stated that the parties agreed Dastar would bar a claim that advertisers merely passed off Cook’s work as their own. But the court concluded that this was not Cook’s actual theory. Cook instead alleged that some advertisements used her sculptures’ images, names, and descriptions in a way that led consumers to believe the advertisers were selling her sculptures. The court found that this allegation could support consumer confusion and noted that the advertisements did not necessarily have to mention Cook by name or expressly state that she made the products.

Disposition

The court held that Cook had adequately alleged her Lanham Act claim and denied Meta’s motion to dismiss. Meta was ordered to respond to the amended complaint within 21 days. The order also stated that a case-management conference would be set by separate notice and that docket number 47 was terminated. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.