Potential Facebook Breach May Expose Gaps in U.S. Breach Laws
Facebook announced on Friday that a bug may have exposed the photos of up to 6.8 million users. How regulators will address this novel incident is not readily clear given current privacy laws.
December 17, 2018 at 02:35 PM
4 minute read
Facebook gave users the weekend to ponder one of the great philosophical questions of all time: When is a post not really a post? On Friday, the social media giant posted a statement on its Facebook for Developers page disclosing that an API bug may have exposed the photos of up to 6.8 million users.
Some of those photos hadn't even been posted yet—just uploaded. Facebook has had its share of troubles this year, but the involvement of photographs is something fairly new. Indeed, it's not entirely clear whether current privacy laws would even cover the novel incident at hand.
“There's nothing I can think of off-hand that seems quite comparable, and that's what I think raises so many questions about this incident. It's not entirely clear how the potential legal ramifications of this will play out,” said April Doss, a privacy and cybersecurity attorney with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr.
Facebook's statement said an API bug might have given third-party apps access to photos over a 12-day period in September. It's not yet clear when the platform discovered the problem, but the relatively narrow scope of U.S. breach laws might provide it with some leeway on notification.
Where the GDPR casts a broad net that includes any information related to an identified or identifiable natural person, U.S. regulations tend to be more concerned with Social Security numbers or payment card and health-related data. A breached photo might not fit neatly into existing American laws or statutes.
“It is absolutely possible that Facebook's biggest legal exposure is with European privacy regulators,” Doss said.
There are other ambiguities to consider too, such as how can there be a photo to breach if the user never finished posting it. According to the note on the Facebook for Developers page, uploaded photos are stored for three days in the event the user returns to complete unfinished business.
If that's news to the average consumer, then Facebook may have a problem with the FTC. Per Doss, the heart of the agency's enforcement under the FTC Act falls under the category of unfair and deceptive practices. In other words, the regulatory implications could come down to what Facebook made explicit versus the assumptions of an average consumer.
“I feel sure that one of the things that people will go back and comb through are the Facebook privacy policies and whether or not those adequately warned users about this,” Doss said.
To be sure, Facebook's terms and services do spell out that the platform has a right to “store, copy and share with others” photos that a user has already elected to share on the site. That agreement is terminated when the content in question is deleted or the account itself is closed, but even then there's a grace period where copies of the original material will continue to exist for a “limited time.”
Still, the fine print isn't black and white. Photos that were uploaded but never posted may or may not constitute a “share”—and the issue itself could become a moot point if regulators were to decide that it was unfair to expect the average consumer to parse those nuances.
“I think that many users would be surprised to learn that it was possible for there to be a compromise on Facebook that affects photos that only existed that only existed on their own personal devices, that again, had never been posted anywhere,” Doss said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250