Facebook Asks Judge to Toss Class Action Over Ads Using Minors' Images

On Tuesday, Facebook Inc. asked a California federal judge to approve their motion to dismiss a proposed class action accusing the social media website of using the names and photographs of minors in advertisements without their consent, saying that the minors weren’t injured by the practice.

The states’ laws cited allegedly do not require parental consent.

Before joining Facebook, a user must agree to the website’s terms and conditions, known as the Statements of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR). Within the agreement, a user consents to allowing the website to use their name or photograph in advertisements throughout the site. The proposed class action argued that the minors who joined the website technically could not give consent for themselves, and therefore were denied their inherent right to control the “use of their identity.”

Facebook introduced their motion to dismiss by calling the plaintiffs’ arguments “meritless.” First, Facebook argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the U.S. Constitution, since they alleged no injury. Facebook claimed that the plaintiffs did not present any facts to “establish that such endorsements have monetary value to individual users or even that Facebook derives additional revenue from them.”

Second, Facebook argued that the plaintiffs are making claims that have already been rejected by previous judges. Nearly two years ago, an Illinois federal judge rejected the claim that Facebook’s SRR violates the California Family Code (CFC), although the plaintiffs are trying to resuscitate that claim once again, the motion said. Third, the website argued that plaintiffs are attempting to apply laws about issues not applicable in the case. Plaintiffs demanded a declaration from the judge that the Children’s Online Privacy Act (COPPA) does not preempt the CFC or unspecified states’ right-of-publicity laws. However, Facebook argued that they never asserted that the COPPA preempted the CFC, and the states’ laws cited allegedly do not require parental consent, rendering these claims inapplicable.

Finally, Facebook argued that when users agreed to the SRR, they agreed to “bring any claims under California law.” Therefore, claims that the website violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act by displaying such social advertisements cannot be applied during the litigation.