Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Howard v Facebook Complaint

Howard v Facebook Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman
Facebook sued for tracking logged-out users
Facebook sued for tracking logged-out users

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Oct 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
PAGE 1 OF 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANA HOWARD,Individually and on Behalf of AllOthers Similarly Situated,Plaintiffs,v.FACEBOOK, INC.Serve at:1601 S. California Ave.Palo Alto, CA 94304andDOES 1 THROUGH 10,Defendants.Case No:_________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges and aversas follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
 
This class action arises out of improper and unlawful actions by theDefendants who participated in a scheme to intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procurethe Plaintiff and the Class members’ personal information as prohibited by law.2.
 
Plaintiff and the Class members are individuals who subscribe to theonline social media site, Facebook.3.
 
Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) maintains personal information pertaining toeach individual as well as monitors the individual online habits of its users keeping track of websites they visit.
Case 3:11-cv-00895-MJR-SCW Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #3
11-CV-00895-MJR-SCW
 
PAGE 2 OF 13
4.
 
Upon obtaining personal information and/or wire or electroniccommunications of the Plaintiff, Facebook conspired to use said information for targetmarketing which pertained to the Plaintiff and the individual Class members, over theInternet.5.
 
Such conduct was committed in violation of Title III of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the ElectronicCommunication Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2511,
et seq.
(the “Wiretap Act”).
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the Southern District of Illinois.Upon information and belief, Defendants intercepted, collected and stored personalinformation from Plaintiff.7. Defendant is a company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with is principal place of business at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto,California 94304. Upon information and belief, Facebook owns and/or operates websitesincluding www.facebook.com, which offer online social interaction and picture storage.Facebook is not registered with the Illinois Secretary of State having had its charterrevoked on January 14, 2011.8. Defendants Doe 1 through 10 are the remaining directors, employees,agents, or contractors of Facebook that are yet to be named and whose identity willbecome known through discovery and/or by requests made by Plaintiff or the members of the Plaintiff class, after which such remaining Defendants will be added as individualdefendants.
Case 3:11-cv-00895-MJR-SCW Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #4
 
PAGE 3 OF 13
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and all the defendants pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that this action arises under statutes of the United States,specifically violations of the “Wiretap Act”.10. Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over DefendantFacebook because Facebook transacted business and made contracts in Illinois directlythrough the website www.facebook.com, violated the law within the State of Illinois, andotherwise has sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Illinois as more particularlydescribed below.11. Defendant Facebook has sufficient minimum contacts such that themaintenance of this law suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play andsubstantial justice. Facebook has voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of thisCourt and jurisdiction is proper because, among other things:a.
 
Facebook directly and purposefully obtained, misappropriated and usedpersonal information and/or information relating to wire or electroniccommunications of 
 
individuals living in Illinois including the Plaintiff and theindividual Class members;b.
 
Facebook committed tortuous acts within this State by misappropriatingpersonal information and/or wire or electronic communications of citizens of Illinois and otherwise violating the Wiretap Act and 42 U.S.C. §1983;c.
 
Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ causes of action directly arise fromFacebook’s commission of tortious and unlawful acts in Illinois;
Case 3:11-cv-00895-MJR-SCW Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #5

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->