Rosado v. Zuckerberg
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-07840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Rosado v. Zuckerberg, Judge Carter granted Zuckerberg’s motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice because the complaint did not state actionable claims.
Jesus M. Rosado’s action was dismissed with prejudice. Mark Zuckerberg’s motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety.
What happened
In Rosado v. Zuckerberg, Jesus M. Rosado alleged that he developed Facebook and that Mark Zuckerberg wrongly claimed credit, denying Rosado recognition and royalties. Rosado also alleged discrimination and asserted constitutional, civil-rights, privacy, consumer-protection, disability, and other statutory claims. He represented himself without a lawyer.
Zuckerberg asked the court to dismiss the case for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court ruled that Rosado did not connect Zuckerberg’s conduct to the government, was not employed by or seeking employment from Zuckerberg, and could not use the cited privacy, trade, consumer, or other statutes against him under the circumstances alleged.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Zuckerberg’s motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice. The court concluded that Rosado’s two amended complaints still had fundamental problems and that further amendment would not fix them.
The detailed version
- Rosado v. Zuckerberg · No. 1:21-cv-07840
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
Jesus M. Rosado sued Mark Zuckerberg, alleging that Rosado developed the Facebook website and mobile application in 2004 and that Zuckerberg falsely claimed to be Facebook’s original developer. Rosado alleged that he received no recognition or royalties. He also alleged discrimination and asserted claims involving the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; Titles II, VI, and VII of the Civil Rights Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Privacy Act; the Federal Trade Commission Act; and the California Consumer Privacy Act. He sought one billion dollars.
Rosado filed the action without a lawyer and amended his complaint twice. The opinion states that he did not allege having any contact or business relationship with Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court applied the motion to Rosado’s second amended complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court dismissed Rosado’s constitutional claims because he did not allege that Zuckerberg acted for the government or under government authority. Constitutional claims generally require government action, and the court found no alleged government connection to Facebook’s development.
The court also dismissed Rosado’s employment-discrimination claims. It explained that Title VII applies to employees and prospective employees, and Rosado did not allege that he worked for Zuckerberg or applied for a job with him.
The court dismissed the remaining statutory claims as well. It stated that the Privacy Act permits private lawsuits against federal agencies, not individuals, and that the Federal Trade Commission Act does not provide a private right to sue. The court found that the cited Title II, Title VI, and Americans with Disabilities Act provisions did not apply against Zuckerberg on the allegations presented. It also found that Rosado’s California Consumer Privacy Act claim failed because he sued Zuckerberg rather than a business, and he did not allege that his information was exposed in a qualifying data breach.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Zuckerberg’s motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice. The court stated that Rosado had already amended his complaint twice, that fundamental problems remained, and that further amendment would not cure them. The case was therefore dismissed with prejudice, using the court’s own stated disposition.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.