Fake Accounts Mean Litigation Could Be a Key Part of Facebook's Future
Instead of shutting fraudulent accounts down one-by-one, social media companies can actually attain some strategic advantages by deploying litigation against offenders.
March 06, 2019 at 02:16 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Don't call it a friend request. Earlier this week, Facebook filed a complaint in northern California district court against Chinese companies accused of selling fake Facebook and Instagram accounts.
Among other things, the complaint alleges trademark and service mark infringement, cybersquatting and breach of contract (Facebook's terms of services specifically prohibit fake accounts). The social media giant can and has manually shut down fraudulent presences without a legal assist—so why incur the potential expense associated with litigation?
Desiree Moore, a partner at K&L Gates and one of the leaders of the firm's digital crisis and planning response practice, pointed to long-term health of Facebook's business model.
“I think it's incredibly important for Facebook to do this sort of thing because otherwise there's a huge, huge risk of dilution, of widespread infringement, which really generates a digital crisis of epic proportions for a company like Facebook whose well-being depends on its brand digitally,” Moore said.
Fraudulent social media profiles aren't exactly a novelty. In a post published to the Facebook Newsroom last May, the company revealed that it had disabled about 583 million fake accounts during Q1 of 2018.
It's a big number, but even that might not make as much noise as a lawsuit. Sending a public statement that fraudulent behavior won't be ignored seems to be a less time-intensive proposition than locating and shutting down fake accounts one-by-one.
“A well-publicized lawsuit can emphasize integrity and have a significant general deterrent effect to other alleged infringers and complicit third parties: You are now on notice that we take these matters seriously and will use all necessary resources to prevent trafficking in fake accounts,” said Adam Weiss, a shareholder at Polsinelli.
Since there's no existing cause of action for “creation of a fake account,” breach of contract can provide a valuable alternative since it's straightforward and relatively easy to identify.
“The availability of a breach of contract claim is one of the reasons we stress to clients to have robust terms of service that can help protect the business,” said Andrew Lustigman, a partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky.
Beyond just simple protection, there are actually some strategic advantages to be gained from litigation as well. The discovery process can provide access to valuable information from third parties such as domain name registrars, internet service providers and credit card companies. According to Weiss, court orders can also provide remedies that social media companies can't attain by shutting down individual accounts.
“In this case, there are domain names involved, and a plaintiff has access to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows a litigant to act against infringing domain names as well,” Weiss said.
As for why Facebook might have chosen this particular hill to make its stand on, the answer might have to do as much with the jurisdiction involved as it does with the merits of the case. The fact that the parties allegedly responsible for the fake profiles are based out of China allows Facebook to issue a warning not only to manufacturers of fake accounts in general, but a notorious trouble spot as well.
“Because China has sort of ventured in this area for a long time of not adhering to intellectual property standards that other countries tend to adhere to, I think it's critical in this case that Facebook step in,” Moore 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 AllHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readPaul Hastings Hires Music Industry Practice Chair From Willkie in Los Angeles
Goodwin Procter Relocates to Renewable-Powered Office in San Francisco’s Financial District
Senator Plans to Reintroduce Bill to Split 9th Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
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