Plaintiffs Plan to Replead Federal Claims in Facebook Privacy Derivative Suit, State Law Claims Delaware-Bound
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. dismissed all California state law claims in the shareholder derivative lawsuit brought in the wake of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal. But the judge gave the plaintiffs a chance to amend their claims brought under the federal securities laws.
March 22, 2019 at 04:52 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge in California on Friday largely granted Facebook's request to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit targeting the company's directors over its alleged mishandling of users' private data, finding that most claims could be dealt with in a similar dispute pending in Delaware Court of Chancery.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California found that the forum selection provision in the company's bylaws routing derivative claims to Delaware didn't deprive plaintiffs suing the company and board members in the wake of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal of their day in court. The judge, however, gave plaintiffs an opportunity to amend claims they brought under the federal securities laws—claims where the Delaware court would not have jurisdiction.
“Although the Delaware Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' federal claims, the court has discretion to sever the federal claims and dismiss the remaining claims to be brought in the prescribed forum,” Gilliam wrote. “This path is appropriate here, as the Delaware Court of Chancery 'unquestionably has a well-recognized expertise in the field of state corporation law,'” he wrote
Representatives from Facebook, which is represented in the case by lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, whose firm is lead counsel in the matter, said the plaintiffs plan to proceed on their federal claims, which are based on allegations that Facebook didn't adequately disclose its practices regarding third-party access to user data in public securities filings. Molumphy noted that the initial complaint was filed in July 2018 after public revelations about Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized access of Facebook data. Molumphy said that government investigations and congressional testimony since that time have shown “this is not a case of unauthorized accessed by a single company.”
“This was authorized access to numerous companies and device makers, including some of the largest companies in the world,” Molumphy said. “The world has changed in nine months at Facebook and the number of details and facts that have come out since July of last year are game changers.”
In Friday's order, Gilliam found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown they met their burden to plead demand futility—to show that it would have been useless to take their concerns to the board before filing suit. Gilliam found that Facebook clearly took steps in the wake of an earlier privacy-related settlement with the Federal Trade Commission to put in place internal controls and monitoring practices related to user privacy.
“Plaintiffs simply allege that the Cambridge Analytica leak proves that these were inadequate,” wrote Gilliam, adding that generalized allegations weren't enough for plaintiffs to meet their burden. “The court recognizes that Facebook's alleged privacy issues are a serious matter. But the standard for demand futility is strict, and requires a particularized showing,” he wrote.
Cotchett's Molumphy said Friday that plaintiffs plan to ask Gilliam to allow them to enforce a state court writ for Facebook's corporate books and record that has been stayed with the judge's ruling pending.
“We believe that's going to be a treasure trove of insider information about board knowledge of this conduct—who was involved and when they knew,” Molumphy said.
Read Judge Gilliam's ruling:
|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
© 2024 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 AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Orrick Secures Summary Judgment for RingCentral in Privacy Class Action
Regulators Say AI Enforcement Sweeps Are Reining in Hucksters, Not Innovation
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
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