Rose v. Facebook

Background

Laura A. Rose filed a civil complaint against Facebook and alleged jurisdiction under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2701. She alleged that Facebook shared users’ private information with third parties without users’ consent or knowledge, sold access to that information, and failed to protect it from unauthorized access. She also alleged that Facebook shared content and information with third-party applications and business partners, including device makers, contrary to users’ privacy settings.

The court had previously allowed Rose to proceed without paying the filing fee. That status required the court to screen her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Screening standard

The screening statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant immune from monetary relief. The court explained that the test for whether the complaint states a claim is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court also said that a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations are read generously, but must still give the defendant fair notice of what it allegedly did wrong.

Frivolous or malicious claim

The court found that Rose’s complaint was not frivolous or malicious. It concluded that the SCA supplied a legal basis for her allegations and that the complaint contained factual allegations about Facebook’s alleged sharing of private information. The court also found no indication that Rose filed the case with an intention to harm Facebook.

Whether the complaint stated a claim

The court described the SCA as creating a private claim against a person or entity that intentionally accesses an electronic communications service without authorization, or exceeds authorization, and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to an electronic communication in electronic storage. The statute does not apply to conduct authorized by the communications-service provider or by a user concerning that user’s communication.

The court concluded that Rose plausibly alleged each required element for screening purposes:

- Unauthorized access: Rose alleged that Facebook shared or sold access to private user information without users’ knowledge or consent. The court found these allegations plausibly showed access without authorization. - Facility: Although Rose did not expressly identify a facility, the court found that her allegations reasonably suggested that Facebook stored the information on a server or another traditional electronic-storage device. The court considered the allegations sufficient to put Facebook on notice. - Electronic communication: The court found that the private information and content allegedly shared with third parties could plausibly constitute electronic data transmitted within the meaning of the SCA. - Electronic storage: The court found that Rose’s allegations contained enough contextual and factual detail to reasonably infer electronic storage. It distinguished an earlier related proceeding in which the complaint had provided only conclusory allegations and insufficient detail about the communications and server involved.

The court emphasized that these findings applied to the mandatory screening stage and did not resolve the ultimate merits of the claim.

Immunity from monetary relief

The court found that the complaint did not seek monetary relief from an immune defendant. It determined that Facebook is a private entity and stated that a private entity not acting for the state is not immune from monetary damages merely because it is private. The court also stated that the SCA permits a plaintiff to seek statutory damages.

Disposition

The court found that Rose’s complaint complied with the mandatory screening requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). It did not dismiss the complaint. Instead, it directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and directed the Marshals to serve Facebook with the complaint and other relevant documents.

The court also addressed Rose’s assertion that the case was related to ongoing multidistrict litigation. It advised her that the district’s local rules govern requests to relate cases and identified the procedure for filing an administrative motion in the lower-numbered case if she believed the cases were related.