We Are The People, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

We Are The People, Inc. and Jacob Milton, described in the opinion as Bangladeshi Muslim human rights activists, sued Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, and Sheryl Sandberg. The amended complaint alleged that Facebook removed content from the plaintiffs’ Facebook pages, violating contractual and quasi-contractual obligations to keep the content posted indefinitely.

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing among other things that the Communications Decency Act barred the claims. In the alternative, they moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California based on a forum-selection clause in Facebook’s Terms of Use.

Forum-Selection Clause

The court applied the test for enforcing a forum-selection clause. The party seeking enforcement must show that the clause was reasonably communicated, mandatory rather than permissive, and applicable to the claims and parties. If those requirements are met, the opposing party must make a strong showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause was invalid because of fraud or overreaching.

The Terms of Use stated that users would resolve claims relating to Facebook exclusively in the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. The court found that the plaintiffs had assented to the Terms of Use. It relied in part on the plaintiffs’ allegation that they had complied with Facebook’s standards, rules, and regulations, and on their failure to argue in opposition that they had not agreed to the Terms.

The court also found that the clause was mandatory because it required users to resolve claims exclusively in the specified courts. The clause covered the plaintiffs’ claims because those claims related to Facebook. The plaintiffs did not attempt to show that enforcing the clause would be unreasonable or unjust. The court agreed with the defendants that the public-interest factors favored enforcing the parties’ agreement and transferring the case.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal following the transfer, so the opinion did not decide the dismissal arguments, including the Communications Decency Act argument. The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the Northern District of California and close the case on the Southern District of New York’s docket.