Hunt v. META/Facebook

Background

Carl A. Hunt, who represented himself, sued Meta/Facebook over two reported hacks of his personal Facebook account in August and October 2023. Hunt alleged that someone used the account to post false statements that he was moving and had trucks, cars, and furniture for sale. He alleged that Meta failed to safeguard his account and asserted a negligence claim. He sought $10 million in compensatory damages.

Hunt originally filed the case in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. Meta removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland based on diversity jurisdiction. Meta then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which addresses personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. In the alternative, Meta moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), based on a forum-selection clause in Facebook’s Terms of Service.

Forum-selection clause and transfer

The Terms of Service stated that claims arising from or relating to the Terms or a user’s access to or use of Meta products must be resolved exclusively in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County, California. They also stated that the user consented to personal jurisdiction in those courts and that California law would govern the claims.

The court found that Hunt was bound by the Terms of Service and that his negligence claim was plainly covered by the forum-selection clause. Hunt did not challenge the clause’s validity, enforceability, or applicability. Instead, he argued that Maryland should protect its residents when harm occurs there and that transferring the case would cause immediate hardship because he cared for relatives in Maryland.

The court explained that a valid forum-selection clause changes the usual transfer analysis. In particular, the court could not give weight to Hunt’s choice of forum or consider his private hardship in deciding whether to transfer. The court therefore enforced the clause and transferred the case to the Northern District of California.

Other issues and disposition

The court chose to consider venue before personal jurisdiction because deciding personal jurisdiction would require addressing a difficult constitutional question, while transfer could be resolved directly and without reaching the merits. After granting Meta’s request to transfer, the court did not decide Meta’s arguments for dismissal based on personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.

The conclusion states that Meta’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the motion was otherwise denied without prejudice to renewal after transfer. The court also noted that Hunt might be able to submit written filings by mail or electronically and might request telephone or video participation in certain proceedings in the receiving court.