Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Voyager Labs Ltd.

Background

Meta Platforms, Inc. sued Voyager Labs Ltd., which the opinion describes as a UK-based entity. Meta alleged that Voyager designed surveillance software using tens of thousands of fake accounts to scrape data from Facebook and Instagram. According to Meta, Voyager licensed the software to customers, including law enforcement agencies, that paid to acquire information about targets anonymously.

Meta asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code § 502. Voyager moved to dismiss the operative first amended complaint.

Contract allegations

Voyager argued that Meta failed to identify the specific contracts at issue. Meta alleged that people who create Facebook or Instagram accounts must agree to the platforms’ terms and identified provisions that Voyager allegedly breached. Those provisions prohibited unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent conduct; unauthorized or automated data collection; fake accounts and multiple accounts; use of Facebook or Instagram after certain account disabling; and selling, licensing, or purchasing data obtained from the platforms.

The court acknowledged that Meta could have described the terms more clearly and had not specified which version of each document applied when the alleged breaches occurred. It nevertheless held that Meta’s allegations gave Voyager enough notice of the basis for the contract claim. The court said disputes over which terms applied and whether Voyager violated them could be addressed through discovery and at summary judgment.

Voyager also argued that Meta had not adequately alleged mutual assent, meaning agreement to the contract terms. Meta alleged that it sent Voyager cease-and-desist letters and other correspondence identifying the alleged violations, and that Voyager continued creating fake accounts, scraping data, and using infrastructure intended to avoid detection. The court found that these allegations plausibly suggested Voyager had actual knowledge of the Facebook and Instagram terms. Given that alleged knowledge, the court also found it plausible that Voyager’s continued use of the platforms signified assent to terms that users must accept to use them.

Personal jurisdiction

Voyager argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority over Voyager, for Meta’s statutory claims. The parties’ April 11, 2023 joint case-management statement said that Voyager would not contest personal jurisdiction or venue for purposes of the action. The court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the statutory claims under pendent personal jurisdiction, a doctrine allowing a court to hear related claims arising from the same core facts as a claim over which it already has jurisdiction.

The court gave three reasons. First, Voyager did not dispute personal jurisdiction for the breach-of-contract claim. Second, Meta’s statutory claims arose from the same alleged misuse of Facebook and Instagram as the contract claim. Third, resolving the claims together promoted judicial efficiency, avoided piecemeal litigation, and was convenient for the parties. The court rejected Voyager’s arguments that the claims involved different facts, that the contract claim might later be dismissed, and that exercising jurisdiction was unfair because Meta could have brought the statutory claims earlier.

Disposition

The court denied Voyager’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It also denied Voyager’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The opinion did not decide whether Voyager ultimately breached the terms or violated either statute; it decided only that the claims could proceed past this motion-to-dismiss stage and that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Voyager for the statutory claims.