Rosemarie Vargas, Kisha Skipper, Jazmine Spencer, Deillo Richards, on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook Inc.
Published: Sep. 10, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 20, 2021 | Filing Date: Aug. 16, 2019 |Case number: 3:19-cv-05081-WHO Bench Decision – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael D. Seplow
(Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP)
Aidan C. McGlaze
(Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP)
Gerard V. Mantese
(Mantese Honigman PC)
David Honigman
(Mantese Honigman PC)
Kathryn Eisenstein
(Mantese Honigman PC)
Patricia A. Stamler
(Hertz Schram PC)
Matthew Turchyn
(Hertz Schram PC)
Defendant
Rosemarie T. Ring
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
Jonathan H. Blavin
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)
Marianna Y. Mao
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)
Jordan D. Segall
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)
Facts
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action suit against Defendant Facebook on behalf of Facebook users alleging that advertisers may have used now-deprecated tools on Facebook's self-serve ad platform to target housing advertisements in ways that would include or exclude them from the eligible audience for those ads based on protected characteristics.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Facebook's advertisement targeting system violated the Fair Housing Act by allowing advertisers to discriminate against protected classes.
DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS: Defendant Facebook contended that plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege sufficient facts to plausibly show an injury in fact.
Defendant also contended that its conduct in publishing advertisements was protected under the Communications Decency Act.
Result
The complaint was dismissed with prejudice based on insufficient standing and because Facebook's publishing activities were protected by the Communications Decency Act.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390