You are on page 1of 14

Young v. Facebook, Inc.

Amended Complaint

AMENDED COMPLAINT W/ exhibits


A-C - Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Principles, and Privacy
D- Email Corespondence
E- Physical Facebook Gift Cards and Best Buy Rewards Card
F- Pictures of Facebook displays in retail stores

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS


OF THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.,
THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE 51,
THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE 54.,
BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING, AND NEGLIGENCE
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Karen Beth Young is a resident of Maryland and a resident of Calif
ornia at this time.
Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant in February 2010 agreeing to te
rms of legal procedure in
Santa Clara County, California.
2. Defendant Facebook is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware
with its principle place of business in Palo Alto, California.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The United States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this act
ion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 12188
for Plaintiffs' claims arising under the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.
C. 12101, et seq.
4. The United States District Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 2
8 U.S.C. 1367, over Plaintiffs claims under the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code 51, et seq.), and the D
isabled Persons Act (California Civil Code 54, et seq.).
5. This Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)
-(c) and 1441 (a).
6. The Northern District of California is the venue District Court of the Unite
d States for the district and division embracing the
California Superior Court in which this case was pending and from which Defendan
t removed this action.
7. Defendant Facebook, Inc. is registered to do business in California and has
been doing business in California, including the
Northern District of California. Facebook, Inc. is subject to jurisdiction in t
his District.
FACTS
8. Plaintiff is an American citizen with an emotional bipolar mental health dis
ability.
9. Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of goods and services o
f Facebook.com.
10. Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of goods and services
of consumer retail stores contracted
with Facebook.com. Subsequently, Plaintiff can not participate in or benefit fr
om merchandise sales and public interactions.
11. Plaintiff has been denied the full use of the Facebook.com social networkin
g site which fosters growth and development
in social relationships on both the United States and worldwide global levels.
Thus, preventing Plaintiff from socially integrating
into society on terms of equality and being denied opportunity in virtually ever
y sphere of life.
12. Plaintiff is subjected to ongoing and extensive advertising and promotion o
f Facebook, Inc. in all aspects of life. This to
include marketing involving every entity of the U.S. and global economy. To inc
lude, radio and communications, widespread retail store outlets,
AOL and email, the Internet as a whole, and all aspects of everyday society.
13. Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of Facebook, Inc. by a
rbitrary and capricious actions of Facebook, Inc.

14. Plaintiffs account was terminated by arbitrary and capricious actions of Fa


cebook, Inc. employees.
15. Plaintiffs account was governed by capricious actions which were impulsive
and sudden rather than founded in sound business
format and clarity.
16. Plaintiffs account termination was an act of abuse of the possession of pow
er by Defendant.
17. Plaintiffs account termination by Defendant was changeable and inconsistent
with total disregard to the Plaintiff.
18. Plaintiffs account termination was a result of Facebook, Inc. practices tha
t are variable and volatile.
19. Plaintiff was denied access by Defendant Facebook, Inc. to the Facebook pag
e titled, "Petition to remove facebook group praying for President Obama's death
"
with over 900,000 members, while Plaintiff's account membership was current and
active.

20. Plaintiff was denied the full use and enjoyment of Facebook, Inc. by not be
ing allowed to access the "Petition to remove facebook group praying for
President Obama's death" Facebook page.
21. Plaintiff sought help regarding the inability to access the "Petition to re
move facebook group praying for President Obama's death" to no avail.
22. Plaintiff was subjected to ongoing third party attacks on the Facebook page
titled, "DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE
ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK M
Y FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA, AMEN"
23. Plaintiff was subjected to third party attacks which included the altering
and reposting of Plaintiffs profile picture. This photograph
is of Plaintiff holding her sisters baby in church. This photo was changed to t
he baby being a giant penis shooting sperm in her sisters face.
24. Plaintiff has been denied the full use of the Facebook.com social networkin
g site due to Facebook.com operation barriers
that are discriminatory to individuals with disabilities.
25. Plaintiff has been denied the full use of the Facebook.com social networkin
g site due to Facebook.com operation barriers
that are capricious in nature.
26. Plaintiff contracted with Facebook in February 2010. Plaintiff did so in o
rder to socialize and connect with both friends and strangers
online in a safe and secure environment. Attached hereto is Exhibit A a true an
d correct copy of the Facebook, Inc.
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Exhibit B Facebook, Inc. Principles an
d Exhibit C Facebook, Inc. Privacy Policy.
27. Facebook, Inc. advertises to be the most popular social web site in the wor
ld. It also advertises for users to connect with friends,
strangers, or others they meet in order to forge relationships. Facebook has a
foundation that they claim is representative of company
principles. Facebook has violated their terms of agreement by not enforcing the
se principles and standards in a fair and equitable manner.
28. Facebook began in 2004 and has undergone fast paced growth that has not bee
n conducive to the civil rights and sensitivities of all
individuals with disabilities.
29. Facebook began in 2004 and has undergone fast paced growth that has been ha
rmful to account holders. Facebook, Inc. has
regularly deleted member accounts without proper cause. Here, automated respons
es and pregenerated notices are used to contact
members without consideration for personal situations and circumstances. This p
ractice is misleading and causes ongoing personal harm.
30. Facebook did not provide reasonable help to Plaintiff with her account prob
lems prior to, during, or after Plaintiffs account termination.
31. Facebook, Inc. does not have a reasonable system in place which assists ind
ividuals with a mental health disability. Rather, Facebook
has a limited and restrictive page that does not properly address the customer s
ervice needs of account members with disabilities.

32. Facebook, Inc. uses places of public accommodation to foster continued fina
ncial growth and societal integration via both Internet and physical store locat
ions.
33. Facebook, Inc. uses places of public accommodation which adhere to ADA lega
l guidelines, all the while denying people equal access and enjoyment
to the same places of public accommodation through the Defendants capricious han
dling of member accounts.
34. Facebook, Inc.'s discriminatory account management causes discrimination to
all individuals wanting to equally enjoy the goods and services of
physical brick and mortar public accommodations which are legally protected.
35. Facebook, Inc.'s discriminatory account management causes discrimination to
all individuals with disabilities wanting to equally enjoy the goods and
services of physical brick and mortar public accommodations which are legally pr
otected by the ADA.
36. Facebook, Inc. uses and benefits from business relationships where their pr
oducts are being sold in brick and mortar physical retail store locations.
These relationships are founded in monetary contracts where public, for profit c
orporations mutually benefit from and advance bottom line corporate dollar.
37. Facebook, Inc. business relationships are directly bound to Facebook member
ship. Retail sales, discounts and promotions are not offered or available
to any individual without a Facebook membership. Facebook account terminations
are unpredictable causing great harm to all individuals.
38. Facebook, Inc. business relationships are directly bound to Facebook member
ship. Retail sales, discounts and promotions are not offered or available
to any individual with a disability without a Facebook membership. Facebook acc
ount terminations are unpredictable causing great harm to all individuals with a
disability.
39. Facebook, Inc's. capricious account membership handling directly interferes
with the rights of all individuals.
40. Facebook, Inc. has contracts with Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Safeway, Radio
Shack and other retail stores in which Facebook Gift Cards are sold
in multiple cash amounts to include $10, $15, $25, and $50 dollar denominations.
These gift cards are prominently displayed with other
retail gift cards in physical brick and mortar locations in order to collect rea
l money in real cash registers from consumers. Facebook maintains 30%.
41. Defendant has additional monetary association with the Best Buy Rewards pro
gram. Here, Facebook Credits from gift cards are rewarded in
various amounts. 250 points at Best Buy gives the consumer a $5 reward certific
ate good for the purchase of any merchandise in the store from
a physical candy bar to a physical clock radio etc. Additional cash rewards are
given based on a total point accumulation of points by the card holder.
Best Buy Rewards points are given based on money spent on gift cards in the stor
e. 1 point is rewarded for every $1 a customer spends.
Facebook, Inc. Gift Card purchases directly translate to Rewards program points
which in turn translate to physical merchandise of choice for consumers.
42. Defendant advertises and promotes Facebook, Inc. with InComm, Zynga and Fac
ebook Applications at physical brick and mortar stores. Here Game Cards
are sold in multiple denominations such as $19.99 and $24.99 to include XBOX and
FarmVille.

43. Defendant Facebook, Inc. Gift Cards are directly connected with every entit
y of the United States economy. Facebook, Inc. benefits from all of the
Facebook account members through marketing and advertising which is generated an
d supported by the members.
44. Plaintiffs account termination was made in bad faith and in contrast to the
spirit of the Facebook agreement thus violating Facebook contractual
obligations and fair business practices.
45. Plaintiffs account termination was made in bad faith and in contrast to the
spirit of the Facebook agreement thus preventing Plaintiff from participating
in and equally enjoying the goods and services offered by retails.
46. Plaintiffs account termination was made in bad faith and in contrast to the
spirit of the Facebook agreement thus preventing Plaintiff from participating
in and equally enjoying the warmth and sincerity of the social networking enviro
nment.
47. Facebook, Inc's. Statement of Rights and Responsibilities regarding account
handling and termination is
ambiguous, despotic and prejudicial to all people.
48. Facebook, Inc's. Statement of Rights and Responsibilities regarding account
handling and termination is
ambiguous, despotic and prejudicial to all people with disabilities.
49. Facebook, Inc. does not provide adequate or reasonable help or assistance t
o people with disabilities.
50. Facebook, Inc. does not provide adequate or reasonable help or assistance t
o people with disabilities regarding
the handling of and termination of accounts.
51. Plaintiff sought to discuss ADA disability in person with Defendant. Plain
tiff was denied any access to private communication.
52. Plaintiff sought to discuss ADA disability via telephone with Defendant. P
laintiff was denied any access to private communication.

53. Plaintiff sought to discuss ADA disability with account termination represe
ntative of Facebook, Inc. Plaintiff was denied any access to private communicat
ion.
54. Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s current policy with account handling and account
terminations is discriminatory to people with disabilities.
55. Defendant has a limited and restrictive help page regarding disabilities wh
ich is discriminatory to people with disabilities.
56. Facebook, Inc. offers no assistance to people with disabilities which prote
cts the privacy of an individual with a disability.
Plaintiff made numerous attempts to reach out to Defendant. Plaintiff sought to
discuss disability issue and Facebook webpage
usage problems with Facebook, Inc. Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to reas
onably address personal concerns and private disability situation.
57. Plaintiff seeks the full and equal access to the goods and services provide
d by Facebook, Inc. through physical retail store locations.
Defendant Facebook, Inc. provides a public website service which provides access
to an array of goods and services offered to the public in
which Facebook, Inc. is a direct recipient of financial gains. Facebook, Inc. a
nd retail locations are jointly connected via Internet and physical store locati
ons.
58. Facebook.com is a commercial website that offers products and services join
tly connected with retail stores. The online connection allows users
to peruse sale items, products, discounts and other consumer offers. Coupons an
d promotions are tied to Facebook, Inc. and retail stores for benefit.
Facebook, Inc.'s current capricious policy on account handling and termination p
rovides access barriers to all people.
59. Facebook.com is a commercial website that offers products and services joi
ntly connected with retail stores. The online connection allows users
to peruse sale items, products, discounts and other consumer offers. Coupons an
d promotions are tied to Facebook, Inc. and retail stores for benefit.
Facebook, Inc.'s current capricious policy on account handling and termination p
rovides access barriers to all people with disabilities. Subsequently,
Plaintiff is being denied equal access to retail stores, as well as the goods, s
ervices and benefits offered to the general public.
60. Facebook, Inc. denies Plaintiff access to goods, services and information m
ade available by retail stores by preventing Plaintiff from being registered
as a member of Facebook.
61. The Internet is a growing and significant source of information, for conduc
ting business for both disabled and non-disabled individuals.
62. Without established guidelines and maintenance of member accounts, people w
ith and without disabilities are denied fair and equal treatment.
This further creates unequal financial and societal hardships on all levels.
63. The Federal government has website accessibility standards under Section 50
8 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines recommend several
basic components for making wesites accessible. Customer service needs of Plain
tiff were not accessible. Plaintiffs account was terminated.
64. Facebook.com contains access barriers that prevented the free and full use
by Plaintiff. These barriers include, but are not limited to, a lack
of customer support, inaccessible sites, lack of adequate prompting and labeling
, and customer service problems which are handled with automated
messages and telephone recordings.
65. Plaintiff sought human interaction and assistance with her account via emai
l, telephone, and in person. Plaintiff sought assistance regarding her
account on many occasions, with no response either prior to or after Plaintiffs
account deactivation. Plaintiff has sent numerous emails that were unanswered.
Plaintiff has made numerous telephone calls to Facebook headquarters , all of wh
ich were answered as computer voice messaging with instructions to send
more emails. Facebook headquarters telephone recording states they are an Inter
net based company so everything must be handled online by sending
an email. However, all emails are not responded to and one way in communication
.
66. Facebook has failed to comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabili
ty Act. Facebook does not provide reasonable accommodations or assistance to
individuals with disabilities. Facebook has operations which affect commerce an
d a public place that facilitates public gatherings, entertainment, and public
display. However, at no time has Facebook shown regard for the following in ter
ms of the Plaintiff:
III-3.200 et seq. Denial of participation, Equality in participation/benefits,
Separate benefit/integrated setting, General.
67. Defendants lack of adherence to and offering of reasonable customer service
rights is discriminatory to Plaintiff.
68. Facebook has unclean hands in its inefficient and hurtful handling of the P
laintiffs account by showing a lack of regard and careless conduct.
Plaintiff made ongoing attempts for assistance only to have her account disabled
. Plaintiff drove from the east coast to Facebook Headquarters at
which time she met with a receptionist who said she was not authorized to give h
er name. Plaintiff was told to fill out a form and someone would
contact her online because nobody could meet with her in person or talk to her o
n the telephone. Plaintiff eventually received an email saying her account
was reinstated. Directly thereafter, Plaintiff sent an email once again asking
for help and requesting information regarding proper or improper procedure.
No response was emailed back and Plaintiff drove back to the east coast with acc
ount enabled. Two days after arriving in Maryland, Plaintiffs account was
once again disabled with no explanation as to why. Attached hereto is email Exh
ibit D a true and correct copy of email correspondence. Plaintiff drove
to California for a second time and is dealing with suffering related to all asp
ects of hardship.
69. Plaintiff originally set up her account as Karen Beth Young to interact wit
h family, friends and strangers. Both Plaintiffs mother and sister are fighting
breast cancer and Plaintiff has a deep concerns for all people dealing with the
cancer cause/disease. Plaintiff set up two other pages relating to cancer for
communication and discussion. These two pages were titled the following: "Cance
r Forum" and "Cartesian Plane For The Cure." Both of these pages were
established legitimately through the Karen Beth Young account with the Plaintiff
as administrator. The Cancer Forum was more of a general site that
emphasized casual and fun topics to include a trivia question of the day. The C
artesian Plane For The Cure site was more technical in nature. The CPFTC
was geared toward mathematics and other information specific to cancer research.
The Plaintiff enjoys the field of mathematics and sought to encourage
and inspire hope in others who were terminally ill with the site. Mathematical
research has an old but new realm of understanding in regard to tumor growth.
Things such as differential equations and numerical analysis are being utilized
to help tailor different treatment options in the cancer field. Plaintiff sent
"friendvites" to others who she believed to be sincere in the cancer cause, and
accepted "friendvites" from others who requested her. Plaintiff did this openly
and honestly describing her exact situation to all, to include her personal info
rmation and information on the cancer sites. Plaintiff welcomed comments and
others posts on the pages as long as they were relevant to cancer. In so doing,
Plaintiff started to establish some very sincere relationships. Albeit online,
they were genuine and heartfelt. Plaintiff has always considered all Facebook f
riends to be real friends regardless of the obvious geographical shortcomings.
The Plaintiffs Karen Beth Young page grew and she was told of a maximum amount o
f 5000 friends. Plaintiff was upset about this for many reasons and was
forced to set up the required, and less personal, Karen Beth Young - Public Figu
re page that Facebook requires. This secondary page is unlimited for friends
with no 5000 cap, but it does not offer many warmer, interpersonal features that
can be more meaningful like birthdays. Additionally, Plaintiff started a petit
ion page
to speak out against this titled, "Join Karen, petition Facebook Say No To 5000
Friends." The day after the petition page was started, the Plaintiffs complete
account and cancer pages were disabled. Plaintiff sent numerous emails regardin
g the relationships that had been affected to include the terminal and general
health nature of them. Eventually, Plaintiff received an email from Facebook st
ating that her account was permanently disabled with no right of an appeal and
no right to speak to anyone without any explanation. Future emails and phone ca
lls to Facebook were never responded to. Following, Plaintiff drove across
country to Facebook Headquarters to seek help in person for all involved. The P
laintiffs personal Karen Beth Young page contained approximately 4300 people,
the Cancer Forum page contained approximately 2700 people, the Karen Beth Young
- Public Figure page contained approximately 1100 people, and the
Join Karen, petition Facebook Say No To 5000 Friends page contained approximatel
y 125 people. Attached hereto is Exhibit E a true and correct copy of a
notorized copy of an AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF FACEBOOK ACCOUNT INFORMATION s
ent to Defendant via US mail.
70. Plaintiff was subjected to extensive, hateful actions when she came across
a hate page that she saw advertised which prayed for death. The page
is titled, "DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZE. YO
U TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT.
YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW MY
FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA.
AMEN." Plaintiff was subjected to hatred, violence, discrimination, threats, po
rnography, kkk, violence and personal attacks when she spoke out against
the page. Plaintiff signed a complaint about the page and joined a petition to
remove it. This page is titled, "Petition to remove facebook group praying for
President Obama's death." Not long after joining the petition page, Plaintiffs
account was modified and Plaintiff was no longer permitted to access the
petition page at all. The hate page had just over a million people on it while
the petition to remove the hate page had just under a million people on it.
71. Plaintiff has and continues to suffer from all aspects of hardship contribu
ted to strained and broken relationships.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of sectio
ns 1-71 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.
73. Facebook.com is a service, privilege, advantage and for-profit corporation
integrated with physical retail locations. Facebook, Inc. is a
service that is fully connected with these brick and mortar stores and all aspec
ts of the economy that offer goods and services which affect
and influence commerce. Websites tied to physical locations must comply with th
e American with Disabilities Act.
74. Retail stores are establishments and public accommodations within the defin
ition of Title III of the ADA.
Facebook, Inc. and retail establishments are directly, financially tied to joint
business practices.
75. "Appellate decisions holding that the ADA is not limited to physical locatio
ns include Federation of the Blind v. Target, Carparts Distribution Center, Inc.
v. Automotive
Wholesalers' Ass'n of New England, Inc. 3of 7 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir.1994) (â public ac
commodationsâ encompasses more than actual physical structures and included defendan
t insurance company); Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F .3d 28 (2d Cir.
2000), rehâ g denied, 204 F.3d 392 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA applies to insurance offering
s);
Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999) (dicta noting t
hat a â place of public accommodationâ includes public facilities "whether in physical s
ace or in electronic space," including websites); and Rendon v. Valleycrest Prod
uctions Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002). In Rendon, the 11th Circuit held t
hat the plaintiff stated a valid ADA claim in alleging that the telephone-based
selection process was a discriminatory procedure that screened out disabled pers
ons. The court stated-
A reading of the plain and unambiguous statutory language at issue reveals that
the definition of discrimination provided in Title III covers both tangible barr
iers, that is, physical and architectural barriers that would prevent a disabled
person from entering an accommodation's facilities and accessing its goods, ser
vices and privileges and intangible barriers, such as eligibility requirements a
nd screening rules or discriminatory policies and procedures that restrict a dis
abled person's ability to enjoy the defendant entity's goods, services and privi
leges. There is nothing in the text of the statute to suggest that discriminatio
n via an imposition of screening or eligibility requirements must occur on site
to offend the ADA."
76. Under Section 302 (b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimina
tion to deny individuals with disabilities an opportunity
to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, a
dvantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities
afforded to other individuals.
77. Under Section 302 (b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination a
lso includes the following:
" A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedur
es, when such modifications are necessary
to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommoda
tions to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity
can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nat
ure of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations" and
" A failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual
with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated
or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence o
f auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate
that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service
, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered
or would result in an undue burden"
78. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and the
regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs account termination was capricio
us thus, denying Plaintiff the full and equal access to
goods and services jointly offered by Facebook, Inc. and retail store locations.
Plaintiff has been unjustly segregated from the community.
Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discri
minatory conduct.
79. Plaintiff sought to discuss the personal nature of Plaintiffs account and a
ctions regarding disability prior to, during and after Plaintiff
account member termination. Plaintiff has a personal right to certain privacy p
rotection regarding disability.
80. Plaintiffs lack of access to reasonable account holder assistance was discri
minatory to Plaintiff, hence contributing to the termination of
Plaintiffs account in respect to Plaintiffs disability.
81. Facebook, Inc's. customer service account handling and termination procedur
es are discriminatory to people with disabilities.
82. Facebook, Inc's customer service account handling and termination procedure
s are discriminatory to Plaintiff.

83. The nexus between Defendant and brick and mortar retail stores is sufficien
t to support a binding relationship with the ADA. In order
for Plaintiff to have full and equal enjoyment of retail stores there must also
be full and equal access to the enjoyment of Facebook.com.
84. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12188 and the remedies, procedures and rights set for
th and incorporated therein Plaintiff requests relief as
included below.
85. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act have cau
sed damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE 51
86. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of sectio
ns 1-85 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.
87. California Civil Code 51, et seq. guarantees equal access for people with d
isabilities to the accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges and services of all business establishments of any kind whatsoever.
Facebook, Inc. is systematically violating the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51, et seq. Facebook.com is requi
red to be accessible without affiliation to a physical store
due to the requirement applicable to all services of a business enterprise.
88. Facebook, Inc. is a "business establishment" within the meaning of Californ
ia Civil Code 51, et seq. Facebook, Inc. generates billions
of dollars in revenue from goods and services in California, the United States a
nd the global market. Facebook.com is an online service
which directly participates in marketing and advertising with retail store locat
ions. Facebook.com is a service directly connected to the
economy which discriminates against disabled individuals by means of improper ac
count handling, lack of accessibility and unreasonable
customer service standards. These forms of discrimination denied Plaintiff full
and equal access to facilities, goods and services that
Facebook.com makes accessible to the general public. Facebook, Inc. is violatin
g the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 et seq
in that Facebook, Inc. is denying Plaintiff goods and services directly tied to
brick and mortar retail store locations. These violations are ongoing.
89. Facebook, Inc.'s actions constitute intentional discrimination against Pla
intiff of the basis of a disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, California Code 51 et seq. in that, Facebook, Inc. has constructed a websit
e that capriciously terminates members accounts.
Defendant provides no reasonable form of assistance for customer service problem
s and has failed to take actions correcting communication
barriers even after being notified of the discrimination that such barriers caus
e.
90. Facebook, Inc. is also violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Cod
e 51, in that the conduct alleged herein constitutes a violation of
various provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq
. as set forth above. California Civil Code 51 (f) provides that a
violation of the right of any individual under the ADA shall also constitute a v
iolation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
91. Defendants actions were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Civil Code 51, et seq and therefore Plaintiff is entitled
to injunctive relief remedying the discrimination.
92. Plaintiff is also entitled to statutory minimum damages pursuant to Califor
nia Civil Code 52 for each and every offense.
93. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act have caused damag
es to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE 54
94. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of sectio
ns 1-93 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.
95. California Civil Code 54 et seq. guarantees full and equal access for peopl
e with disabilities to all public places.
Facebook, Inc. directly participates in business advertising, promotion and deve
lopment with retail stores which
constitute a "public place" within the meaning of the California Civil Code.
96. Facebook, Inc. is violating the right of Plaintiff to full and equal access
to public places by denying full and equal
access to Facebook.com. Facebook.com is a "place to which the public is invited
" therefore deeming access a requirement
unrelated to any physical store location.
97. Facebook, Inc. is also violating CCC 54 et seq by denying disabled individu
als who need reasonable customer service
standards of communication the full and equal access to the services and benefit
s provided to non-disabled customers.
Retail stores in California are "public places" within the meaning of CCC 54. F
acebook.com is a service provided by
and integrated with these public place retail stores. Facebook, Inc. has discri
minated in violation of California's Disabled Persons
Act by capriciously terminating Plaintiffs account and not offering reasonable c
ustomer service standards of assistance. Thus,
making goods and services of Facebook.com and retail locations inaccessible to P
laintiff.

98. Facebook, Inc. is also violating CCC 54 et seq. in that Facebook, Inc.'s ac
tions are a violation of the ADA. Any violation of
the ADA is also a violation of the California Civil Code 54.1
99. Defendants actions were and are in violation of California Civil Code 54 et
seq. and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief
remedying the discrimination.
100. Plaintiff is also entitled to damages under California Civil Code 54.3 for
each offense.
101. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of the California Civil Code have caused damag
es to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION


BREACH OF CONTRACT
102. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of secti
ons 1-101 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.

103. Facebook, Inc. did not perform in accordance with the terms of agreement o
f their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities contract
by arbitrarily and impulsively handling Plaintiffs member account. The Defendan
ts lack of adherence to its own established and advertised
contract has caused irreparable damage to Plaintiff.
104. The inconsistent handling of Plaintiffs account amounted in the deliberate
indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered injury, loss and damage
. This including and not limited to loss of liberty, invasion of privacy,
emotional distress, pain and suffering, undue hardship, personal anguish, social
segregation and discrimination.
105. Defendants Statement of Rights and Responsibilities contract with Plaintif
f was not adhered to with good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff suffers from social and economic loss as a direct result. Plaintiffs
account was terminated in bad faith thus violating Defendants
contractual obligations.
106. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of Breach Of Contract have caused damages to P
laintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING
107. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of secti
ons 1-106 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.
108. Facebook, Inc. promised to perform fairly, honestly and reasonably accordi
ng to their contract Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Facebook, Inc. did not adhere to this covenant.
109. Facebook, Inc's. lack of responsiveness and arbitrary actions resulted in
the termination of Plaintiffs account membership accordingly
demeaning the purpose and spirit of the contractual relationship. Facebook, Inc
shows a lack of concern for Plaintiff.

110. Facebook, Inc. violated the spirit of its terms of agreement which support
social networking with friends, strangers, communities, activities,
and interests by condemning Plaintiff for social networking.
111. Facebook, Inc. ambiguously accepted, capriciously terminated, arbitrarily
reinstated and abusively terminated Plaintiffs account with
total disregard for the welfare of Plaintiff.
112. Defendant violated the spirit of its terms of agreement by not showing con
cern or offering assistance when their computer system flagged
Plaintiffs account. Rather, Plaintiff was told in an email that her account pro
blem was technical and due to a percentage of interactions or some
other friend interaction problem that had unverifiable data/information. Plaint
iff was told their could be a "potential" problem. Defendant made no
attempt to assist Plaintiff in finding resolution to the problem despite Plainti
ffs genuine concern, time and interest.
113. Defendant's wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined by order of this c
ourt, will cause continued, great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff in that
friendships and relationships will be permanently damaged and lost.
114. Facebook.com does not provide a reasonable customer service standard to as
sist people with disabilities. Rather, Defendant
uses computer generated responses that are not appropriate for individuals with
disabilities. Plaintiff was unable to access help or to
receive reasonable customer service and assistance.
115. Defendants account handling practices and terminations are deficient and d
iscriminatory. Website and customer service standards can and
should be set in place to assist all individuals. Even more, to assist all peop
le with disabilities. Corrections made would not be economically prohibitive
and are technologically simple.
116. Defendant has an implied duty not to frustrate the Plaintiffs rights to re
ceive all of the benefits from the contract entered in to by both parties.
Defendant violated Plaintiffs rights and the Facebook contractual obligations.
Plaintiffs membership account was terminated arbitrarily without merit.
117. Plaintiffs Facebook account was terminated in bad faith.
118. Plaintiff is an American with a Disability. As such, the ADA, Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and California Disabled Persons Act are all interconnected.
119. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith An
d Fair Dealing have caused damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at tri
al.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION


NEGLIGENCE
120. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of secti
ons 1-119 inclusive, as set forth in full herein.
121. Facebook, Inc. capriciously deleted Plaintiffs account without reasonable
care.
122. Defendant is negligent in their handling of Plaintiffs account. Plaintiff
made personal, online and telephone inquiries in order
to contact Facebook, Inc. regarding account trouble. Defendant did not use due
care in reasonably addressing Plaintiffs account issues
thus causing further harm and continued upset for Plaintiff.
123. Defendant breached its duty to use due care and consideration in the handl
ing and termination of Plaintiffs Facebook member account.
This negligent handling of Plaintiffs account has caused ongoing and unjust hard
ship for Plaintiff in that relationships have been hurt and lost.
124. Defendant did not use due care in adhering to their contractual obligation
s connected with the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Defendants actions were offensive and whimsical in nature, showing no concern fo
r Plaintiffs well being.
125. Plaintiff was negligently injured by Defendant prior to final termination
of Plaintiffs member account. Plaintiff sought clarity and help regarding
member account after account was reinstated. Defendant made no attempt to conta
ct Plaintiff or offer any form of reasonable assistance. Directly
thereafter, Plaintiffs account was permanently terminated without regard or any
communication whatsoever.
126. Defendants processing, review and termination of Plaintiffs account was ca
reless and inefficient.

127. Facebook, Inc.'s violations of Negligence have caused damages to Plaintiff


in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgement against Facebook, Inc. as follows:
1. A permanent injunction to prohibit Facebook, Inc. from violating the America
ns with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq., California Civil Code 51 et seq., and California Civil
Code 54 et seq.
2. A permanent injunction requiring Facebook, Inc. to take the steps necessary
to make Facebook.com
readily accessible to and usable by all disabled individuals.
3. A declaration that Facebook, Inc. is owning, maintaining and/or operating Fa
cebook.com in a manner which discriminates
against and fails to provide reasonable access for persons with disabilities as
required by law.
4. For a permanent injunction that enjoins Facebook, Inc. to reactivate Plaint
iffs membership account.
5. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights under Title III of the Americans Wi
th Disabilities Act were violated by Defendant.
6. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act we
re violated by Defendant.
7. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights under the California Disabled Perso
ns Act were violated by Defendant.
8. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights were violated by Defendants Breach
Of Contract.
9. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights were violated by Defendants Breach
of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
10. For a declaration that Plaintiffs rights were violated by Defendants Neglig
ence.
11. For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
12. For specific damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
13. For related expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.
14. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
15. For punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
16. For treble damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
17. For Plaintiffs cost of suit incurred herein.
18. For leave to amend Plaintiffs complaint for attorneys fees upon retention o
f counsel as Plaintiff is
representing herself at this time.

19. For pre-judgement interest to the extent permitted by law


20. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
December 10, 2010
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen Beth Young
Plaintiff

You might also like