06 January 2019

Facebook Selection of Venue Clause: Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire.

Because the allegedly inflated view count associated with "Luv ya" is not "otherwise objectionable" within the meaning of Section 230(c)(2), YouTube is not entitled to immunity from Plaintiffs' contract or tortious interference claims…… Song fi Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, however, is not precluded by § 230(c)(1) because it seeks to hold defendants liable for breach of defendants' good faith contractual obligation to plaintiff….Darnaa, LLC v. Google.  

......These Plaintiffs lost their cases but NOT BASED ON IMMUNITY. And they lost on Summary Judgment so for Facebook to try a Motion to Dismiss is arguably Rule 11 Material. I just may go there. Stay tuned. 
Whatever guys.  Here is the Canada case I reference in the letter. Drouez v. Facebook.

On the second step, the majority9 held that the plaintiff did in fact establish strong reasons not to enforce the forum selection clause. Those reasons include: 

*Facebook's terms of use constitute a contract of adhesion that is the result of unequal bargaining power between a global corporation and an individual consumer10 

*freedom to contract should not effectively deprive consumers of a remedy when claims arise;11 

*the claim seeks to enforce quasi-constitutional privacy rights of British Columbians:12

B.C. courts are in a better position to adjudicate claims based on a B.C. statute;

Facebook offered no evidence that a California court would actually hear the claim; and it would be more convenient for Facebook to make its records available for inspection in British Columbia than it would be for the plaintiff to travel to California.14

Facebook Faces Lawsuit on C... by on Scribd

No comments: