California Facebook users joining class action lawsuits over personal data breach
More lawsuits may be filed after Facebook discloses to users if Cambridge Analytica accessed their data.
A class action lawsuit against Facebook was filed in Los Angeles federal court Wednesday, and is one of several that have been filed around the country.
A Navy veteran has joined with two other Southern Californians to file a class-action lawsuit against Facebook and others in the wake of revelations that the personal data of an estimated 87 million users was exposed in an alleged effort to help steer the 2016 presidential campaign.
…The lawsuit accuses Facebook of failing to protect the personal information of its users, despite assurances on its site that users “own all of the content and information” they post on Facebook, and that users “can control how it is shared” by using the platform’s privacy settings.“This is false and misleading,” the lawsuit argues.
In this video, Florida attorney Mike Morgan of the Orlando Law firm Morgan and Morgan explains why his clients filed a lawsuit late last month.
More lawsuits may be filed after Facebook discloses to users if Cambridge Analytica accessed their data.
On Monday, April 9, Facebook will add a link to the top of each user’s news feed letting them know whether or not their information may have been “improperly shared” with Cambridge Analytica, which allegedly misused user data obtained through a third-party quiz app. The company, which worked with President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, reportedly used that information to build psychological profiles used to target voters with ads.
According to chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer, Facebook estimates that Cambridge Analytica’s practices impacted 87 million users, a figure that has risen several times since news of the scandal first broke. The majority of the impacted users are in the United States.
Cambridge Analytica has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and said in a statement last week that it only had data from 30 million users.
And more lawsuits may be just one of Facebook’s many worries.
The legal and regulatory pile-on threatens to deepen the company’s woes, as plaintiffs and government officials demand responses to subpoenas, which could potentially reveal more damaging information. And the headlines keep privacy concerns related to the world’s largest social media network fresh in the public eye, eroding its user base.
“This is about reputation,” said Mark Berman, a New York lawyer who specializes in digital privacy issues and isn’t involved in the litigation. “Facebook has been tarnished, very badly, and people are going to leave it unless they become more transparent.”
…Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, a Republican, added to the pressure on Facebook this week by issuing a wide-ranging civil investigation demand.
The Missouri official said he has reason to believe Facebook violated state law by engaging in conduct involving “deception,” “fraud,” or “unfair practices.” Materials handed over in response to the probe could be disclosed to other state or federal law enforcement agencies, according to the document.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In the private space: Analytica, Obama, and so on and so forth.
In the public space: Obama, Clinton, and so on and so forth.
Guillotine the lawyers? Too soon?
Layers and layers of grey legal area. Awesome.
Lawyers merely do their clients’ bidding.
If you have a scummy lawyer, he or she has a scummy client.
Lisa Bloom and Gloria Allred are living proof of that.
But not for Facebook,Cambridge Analytica, the Russians and Assange I would have certainly voted for Hillary…
(Said no-one,ever!)
TANSTAAFL applies. Facebook is FREE! for the user. Which makes the user the product. No one should have to read the fine print to understand this.
“How much does Facebook make off you? The amount may surprise you”
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/how-much-does-facebook-make-off-amount-may-surprise.html
“Facebook reconsiders ‘unsafe for community’ tag on pro-Trump Diamond and Silk videos after Fox & Friends appearance”
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/facebook-reconsiders-unsafe-for-community-tag-on-pro-trump-diamond-and-silk-videos-after-fox-friends-appearance.html
“Cruz Grills Mark Zuckerberg On Whether FaceBook is a “Neutral Public Forum” — Ace of Spades
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=374748
Classic Ace of Spades.
‘And then there’s Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The billionaire twerp who made his money the old fashioned way (by conning his friends out of the idea, mostly) is set to testify before Congress today about this tempest in a Teapot Dome involving Cambridge Analytics and everyone’s personal data. As I have said, this is a Rahm Emanuel crisis that could have serious implications. The only reason he’s in the spotlight is because the Trump Campaign successfully employed the same data tools that Obama did four years earlier – which everyone thought was just so super cool and savvy – and came out the winner in ’16. Remember and Obama’s minions openly crowed about their direct partnership with Zuckerberg himself. The only reason this is tantamount to a heinous crime is that Zuckerberg didn’t prevent Trump from utilizing the same data. And don’t be fooled by Zuckerberg’s phony mea culpa; as I linked to yesterday with that article about Jiz-Lip Chappaquiddick Stick Kennedy’s call for Facebook to be regulated by the government. It’s a backdoor attempt to wrest control of the entire internet via stealth net neutrality. Zuckerberg would want nothing better. Remember that no matter who is in the Oval Office, DC is controlled by the Democrat-Leftist-Media complex. Give them an inch and in a few short years… well, look no further than the state of the Second Amendment to see where the First will wind up. If it’s not close to it already considering the Cultural Revolutionaries on campus and elsewhere. If anything needs to be done, it’s the virtual monopoly that Google and Amazon have on what messages get out and how they are characterized that needs to be addressed. Can you say “Sherman Anti-Trust” and “AT&T breakup?”
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=374732
I believe there is also a class action suit related to the Bundy trials in Oregon and Nevada as well, something about FBI getting warrantless searches on FB users who commented or liked pro-Bundy articles.
I guess that because FB gave the information to Obama, he was brilliant in tapping into the data collection they had, Cambridge Analytica paid for the service, and because it was an effort to help (gasp) Trump, it became nefarious, and of course Hillary couldn’t have used any data collection from FB, because she wiped her servers with like a cloth, or something.
I am sure there were things that were targeted to conservative people, but, I doubt many minds were changed drastically, isn’t it like preaching to the choir type when you have ads telling people stances that match a lot of what they believe?
I still believe that the Russians put forth such little effort, and it truly was petty scale, because they thought Hillary was going to win, and while Putin has contempt for her for the Clinton meddling in the Russian elections against Putin, Hillary would have been a pushover for Putin to manipulate in any way he wanted with little risk. The whole Democrat party is more in line with Russia and that ideology and history than they are with the US ideals.
FB has a big problem, a negative image problem, they have pissed off the users on both sides of the aisle, and their SJW stance along with social engineering and shutting down voices that are not Liberal, all are going to have this giant reeling. Lawsuits, taxes, fines, and their whining about needing to make users pay for FB if they can’t shop out the megadata they collect and sell to anyone who pays their price, are going to see FB just a memory. At the very least it is going to shrink them, as has already been happening.
The little man in the gray t-shirts will be fine, he has already been cashing out, but he won’t like not having the powerful influence he once had.
I don’t understand what was wrong about this story. Are plaintiffs claiming that they were damaged by seeing political ads during the US Presidential election?
Or are they claiming that they were damaged by NOT seeing ads during the 2016 Presidential election because they didn’t match the psychological profile of a Republican?
And the information given to Obama and Clinton?
All that money, and the best haircut that little prick can manage is a bowl cut?
Nauseating to look at him.
Will those with specific legal knowledge please compile a list showing the differences between Cambridge Analytica using FB data, and FB itself supplying the data to a presidential campaign directly.
This whole deal stinks to high heaven.
Facebook provided data to Obama’s campaign, apparently for free, and that fact is basically being ignored. Now all of a sudden it’s a big deal?
I have a facebook account which I barely use now, but when the Presidential campaigns were running, both primaries and general, I was somewhat active on facebook. I remember very well how annoyed I got about being constantly bombarded with pro-Hillary crap. ALL.THE.TIME.
I clearly remember selecting to not receive that kind of advertising repeatedly, at some point ALL.THE.TIME. I was marking ‘do not see stuff like this’ on a daily basis. It never worked, as they kept showering my feed. No pro-Trump stuff though and plenty of ‘He’s the devil’ stuff.
And now they want me to believe that the Trump campaign won ‘because facebook’?
Get out of here!
I do not like conspiracy theories very much, but there’s something fishy, and it stinks a LOT.