While Zuck Goes Hat-in-Hand to Congress, Facebook's Lawyers Hit Back at Data Suits
In the runup to Mark Zuckerberg's Congressional testimony, Facebook's lawyers at Gibson Dunn claimed that the company "broke no laws and violated no legal duties" in a filing before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
April 09, 2018 at 05:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has prepared to apologize this week on Capitol Hill over security issues, the social media giant's lawyers struck a less conciliatory tone in court, where about 20 consumer class actions are pending over the Cambridge Analytica debacle.
In prepared testimony released ahead of Wednesday's hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Zuckerberg apologized for Cambridge Analytica and other lapses that led to fake news, foreign interference in elections and hate speech on Facebook. “We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake,” Zuckerberg said. “It was my mistake, and I'm sorry.” Zuckerberg also faces a joint hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees on Tuesday.
But in court papers filed on Friday before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which plaintiffs lawyers have asked to coordinate the consumer cases over Cambridge Analytica, Facebook lead counsel Orin Snyder of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York took a much more forceful stance in defending his client.
“Facebook is strongly committed to protecting users' information, and it has already taken and continues to take substantial actions to address the conduct that gave rise to these cases,” he wrote. “But the lawsuits that have been filed against Facebook are misguided: Facebook broke no laws and violated no legal duties. And although Cambridge Analytica and other related actors used data for purposes that Facebook and its users never authorized, there was no data breach—no unauthorized access to Facebook's systems and no hacking of user data.”
Orin Snyder.
He went on to say that third parties, such as Aleksandr Kogan, the developer of the app that collected data through a personality test, violated Facebook's terms of service in sharing the information with Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm with ties to Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. He also claimed Kogan and his company assured Facebook the information had been deleted.
The suits primarily name Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, but Kogan or his company, Global Science Research, were defendants in at least five cases. Zuckerberg, Cambridge Analytica investor Robert Mercer and former Trump campaign aide Steve Bannon also were defendants in a handful of cases.
Snyder and Facebook did not respond to requests for comment. Zuckerberg has previously given assurances of change, stating that Facebook would begin verifying identities of political advertisers and is simplifying its privacy and security settings.
Plaintiffs attorney Michael Sobol of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Hank Bates of Carney, Bates & Pulliam in Little Rock, Arkansas, have moved to coordinate all the consumer cases to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. Those cases, which are among numerous lawsuits and legal probes in the United States and the United Kingdom over the scandal, allege Facebook violated consumer fraud and privacy laws in allowing Cambridge Analytica to use data from 87 million users. They are pending in five states, including California, Texas and New Jersey.
Facebook supports the move but requested U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, to whom the MDL panel last week assigned 61 lawsuits against Apple Inc. brought over alleged defects in iPhone batteries. Facebook noted that Davila is overseeing two related shareholder cases and that many relevant witnesses, and its headquarters, would be in Silicon Valley.
But in supporting an MDL, Snyder noted that each case suffered “from similar deficiencies,” primarily involving certification of a nationwide class and failure to assert that anyone was injured from the alleged breach.
“And all of the putative classes suffer from the same weaknesses that, in Facebook's view, will make class certification impossible, including the common struggle to identify any cognizable theory of injury or damages, and the myriad individualized issues, including issues of consent, that will predominate over any classwide concerns,” he wrote.
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 AllFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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