In the Matter of Facebook, Inc.
Federal Trade Commission
No. C-4365 (2019)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In 2012 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) issued an administrative order requiring certain things of Facebook, Inc. (defendant). The FTC alleged that Facebook violated this order in the following ways. (1) The 2012 order prohibited Facebook from misrepresenting the extent to which users could control the privacy of their personal information. The FTC alleged that after the order, Facebook did not disclose to users that friends with whom they had shared their information could then share that information with third parties, including app developers and behavioral advertisers. (2) In 2014 Facebook announced that it would no longer allow third-party app developers access to users’ personal information through their friends. The FTC alleged that Facebook in fact continued to allow such access for at least an additional year. (3) The order required Facebook to establish a comprehensive privacy program to address privacy risks related to its services, but Facebook’s privacy program did not include a process to screen third-party app developers. (4) Facebook represented to its users that facial-recognition technology would not operate unless the users turned the technology on, but for certain users this technology was turned on automatically.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Chopra, Comm’r)
Dissent (Slaughter, Comm’r)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.