New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Meta in 2023 for allegedly creating a “breeding ground” for child predators on Facebook and Instagram, claims that the company denies.
And while monumental, Wednesday’s verdict pales in comparison to one issued yesterday, when a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay a staggering $375 million to the state for violating consumer protection law by enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The state claims Meta told the public Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp are safe for New Mexico teens and children, while hiding the truth about how much dangerous and harmful content the company hosts.
New Mexico argued that Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties and allowed harmful content to spread when doing so benefited the company's bottom line.
New Mexico argued that Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties and allowed harmful content to spread when doing so benefited the company's bottom line.
Corporate conductOfficial statementAgainst
Facebook suppressed an explosive New York Post article detailing how Hunter Biden used the position
Shortly before the 2020 presidential election, Facebook suppressed an explosive New York Post article detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now- President Biden, for personal gain, with the apparent awareness of President Biden.
Shortly before the 2020 presidential election, Facebook suppressed an explosive New York Post article detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now- President Biden, for personal gain, with the apparent awareness of President Biden.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook states photos become inaccessible after account deletion
Facebook stated to users that after account deletion, photos and videos would be inaccessible.
• Facebook’s Deception Regarding Photo and Video Deletion: Facebook stated to users that, when they deactivate or delete their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible.
Speech & moderationAllegationYou decide
Facebook suppressed the Post article about the Biden family following guidance from the FBI
Facebook’s suppression of the Post article—and allegations of Biden family corruption highly relevant to the 2020 presidential election—following guidance from the FBI is highly troubling.
Facebook’s suppression of the Post article—and allegations of Biden family corruption highly relevant to the 2020 presidential election—following guidance from the FBI is highly troubling.
Privacy & surveillanceAllegationAgainst
Facebook is accused of selling user data to advertisers
Facebook is accused of selling user data to advertisers, generating $70 billion in revenue in 2019.
Indeed, most of Facebook’s revenue is derived from selling ads and user data to advertisers; in 2019 alone, these sales generated $70 billion in revenue for the social media giant.
FTC v. Facebook: Social Media Giant Sued for Anticompetitive Conduct - Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
Workplace equityAllegationAgainst
Civil rights groups sued Facebook and Instagram for targeting predatory college ads at Black users
Civil Rights Groups Sue Facebook and Instagram For Targeting Predatory College Ads at Black Users.
ERC alleges Facebook and Instagram are public accommodations (i.e., businesses that must serve everyone without discrimination), receiving valuable targeted ads is part of the benefit of the bargain a user makes with Meta, and that by discriminating in ad delivery, Meta is providing different quality service for the same price.
Civil Rights Groups Sue Facebook and Instagram For Targeting Predatory College Ads at Black Users
EducationConfirmedIn favor
Facebook plans 100k scholarships for Black students
Facebook plans 100,000 scholarships for Black students on track to attain digital skills certification and launches a new feature called Lift Black Voices.
The company additionally plans 100,000 scholarships to black students on track to attain their digital skills certification, as well as the launch of a new Facebook feature entitled Lift Black Voices.
Some of Facebook's other plans to address racial inequality include providing free training to Black and Latinx individuals through a program called Elevate, giving 100,000 scholarships to Black students in its Facebook Blueprint program and donating $5 million to over 250,000 Facebook Fundraisers created for the Equal Justice Initiative, Thurgood Marshall College Fund and the Innocence Project.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook censors The Post's Black Lives Matter reporting
Facebook censors The Post's reporting on Black Lives Matter.
Facebook has agreed to pay a record $14.5m (£10.1m) to settle claims it discriminated against US workers in its hiring practices.
Facebook settles US worker discrimination claims
"Facebook is not above the law, and must comply with our nation's federal civil rights laws, which prohibit discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ.
MENLO PARK (CBS SF / CNN) -- One current Facebook manager and two job applicants have filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the Menlo Park-based company has "a general policy of discrimination against Black applicants and workers, including in hiring, evaluations, promotions, and pay."
"People of color and Black workers in particular remain underrepresented at all levels of Facebook and especially at the management and leadership levels.
Black Facebook Employee, Job Applicants File EEOC Complaint Alleging Discrimination - CBS San Francisco
“People of color and Black workers in particular remain underrepresented at all levels of Facebook and especially at the management and leadership levels.
One current Facebook manager and two job applicants have filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that Facebook has “a general policy of discrimination against Black applicants and workers, including in hiring, evaluations, promotions, and pay.”
Black Facebook employee and two job applicants file EEOC complaint alleging discrimination | CNN Business
Wages & economic policyConfirmedAgainst
Facebook avoids U.S. taxes by claiming $2.9 billion in offshore reinvestments
Facebook claims $2.9 billion of its profits were earned offshore and permanently reinvested outside the U.S.
Facebook also likely has avoided U.S. taxes by claiming that $2.9 billion of the company’s profits were earned offshore, and are “permanently reinvested” outside the United States.
Privacy & surveillanceRulingAgainst
Facebook was held responsible for privacy violations through a jury verdict in a New Mexico trial
Jurors sided with prosecutors, finding Facebook made deceptive statements about protecting users’ data that affected New Mexico’s entire population of more than two million people.
Attorneys representing New Mexico accused Facebook of deceiving users about privacy protections on the social media platform and encouraged jurors during closing arguments Wednesday to find the company liable for thousands of violations of state law.
Facebook accused of deceiving users in New Mexico as trial over privacy scandal wraps up - ABC News
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a related $100 million resolution of charges that Facebook made misleading public disclosures in connection with data privacy risks.
The jury also found Facebook misled the public about investigations into third-party app developers that harvest user data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for over 43 million violations of consumer protection law | Fortune
New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for over 43 million violations of consumer protection law—and Meta could owe over $200 billion in penalties
The two-week trial in Santa Fe centered on accusations that Facebook, owned by Meta, deceived users about a data breach stemming from a third-party personality quiz that harvested data from roughly 87 million profiles and sold it to a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, to generate targeted ads.
Jurors sided with prosecutors, finding Facebook made deceptive statements about protecting users’ data that affected New Mexico’s entire population of more than two million people.
Facebook, Inc was found to have committed more than 40 million violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act when they made false and misleading statements to users in New Mexico.
“For years, Facebook operated as if the rules that apply to everyone else didn’t apply to them.
The jury found that Facebook made false or misleading statements assuring consumers that they controlled how their information was shared, that Facebook did not sell or provide their personal information to advertisers, and that the company did not buy or sell users’ data.
Jury Finds Facebook Violated New Mexico Consumer Protection Law, Faces Billions in Potential Civil Penalties
Jury Finds Facebook Violated New Mexico Consumer Protection Law, Faces Billions in Potential Civil Penalties - New Mexico Department of Justice
Court Orders Meta to Pay $942 Million and Overhaul Protections for Children on Facebook and Instagram in Landmark New Mexico Ruling
The jury’s verdict makes clear that Facebook knowingly made false or misleading statements or committed an unconscionable act that exploited New Mexicans’ lack of knowledge to a grossly unfair degree and that the social media giant was willful in its actions.
A New Mexico jury on Friday found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy protections on the platform in the latest legal setback against the social media giant that has already cost it billions of dollars.
The jury also found Facebook misled the public about investigations into third-party app developers that harvest user data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleged Meta illegally collected and used the data of children under the age of 13 who used its platforms, made decisions in designing its platforms that drove excessive use and put young users at risk, and that it lied to users, their families, and the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram.
Jurors sided with prosecutors, finding Facebook made deceptive statements about protecting users’ data that affected New Mexico’s entire population of more than two million people.
On 25 September 2026, a New Mexico jury found Facebook liable for over 43 million violations of the state’s consumer protection law, alleging that the platform deceived users about its privacy protections and the handling of third-party access to user data.
"New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for over 43 million violations of consumer protection law - and Meta could owe over $200 billion in penalties", 26 September 2026
A New Mexico jury on Friday found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy protections on the platform...
The jury also found Facebook misled the public about investigations into third-party app developers that harvest user data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal...
Some Facebook users may soon receive a second payout tied to parent company Meta's $725 million privacy settlement, according to the claims administrator and an email sent to eligible claimants.
While Facebook required third-party developers to comply with its policies and terms, the complaint alleges that Facebook generally did not screen third-party developers before allowing them to access user data.
Jury finds Facebook liable for deceiving users on privacy protections
The jury also found Facebook misled the public about investigations into third-party app developers that harvest user data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
I put in 12 years of work just for Facebook to violate our privacy by not controlling our privacy on the internet! that is life threatening to me, and I'm supposed to monetize my app, which is the fastest chrome, which has been hacked ,breached, all of the above, I need to be compensated for that, and so does everyone else.
Today’s action alleges that Facebook has violated the 2020 order, as well as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule).
The Commission first filed a complaint against Facebook in 2011, and secured an order in 2012 barring the company from misrepresenting its privacy practices.
New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable of deceiving users about privacy protections | PBS News
The jury also found Facebook misled the public about investigations into third-party app developers that harvest user data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
settlement that requires Facebook to implement a comprehensive, multi-faceted set of compliance
Runkle and Jason Lee, in conjunction with staff at the FTC’s Division of Enforcement. Facebook Agrees to Pay $5 Billion and Implement Robust New Protections of User Information in Settlement of Data-Privacy Claims
“This settlement’s historic penalty and compliance terms will benefit American consumers, and the Department expects Facebook to treat its privacy obligations with the utmost seriousness.” “Despite repeated promises to its millions of world-wide users that they could control how their personal information is shared, Facebook took steps to undermine consumers’ choices,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons.
“We became the product for Facebook. They turned our dreams into data they could sell to advertisers,” said Randi McGinn, an attorney for the state.
Facebook Accused of Deceiving Users in New Mexico as Trial Over Privacy Scandal Wraps Up
Workplace equitySettlementAgainst
Facebook settles to eliminate discriminatory ad features
Facebook agreed to eliminate ad features allowing landlords, employers, and credit agencies to discriminate against protected groups in a DOJ settlement.
In a settlement announced by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, Meta Platforms — formerly known as Facebook — has agreed to eliminate features in its advertising business that allow landlords, employers and credit agencies to discriminate against groups of people protected by federal civil rights laws.
Speech & moderationConfirmedYou decide
Facebook censors black activists
Facebook censorship of black activists was criticized in a Medium article by an activist.
In May, she deplored the increasingly common Facebook censorship of black activists in an article for Medium titled “Mark Zuckerberg Hates Black People.”
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook designed deactivation study
Facebook designed a study showing users had lower anxiety, depression, and loneliness after stopping Facebook and Instagram use for a week.
In late 2019, according to the brief, Meta designed a “deactivation study,” which found that users who stopped using Facebook and Instagram for a week showed lower rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness.
Workplace equitySettlementAgainst
Facebook agreed to pay nearly $5 million to settle several lawsuits that alleged its advertising platform allowed for discrimination in housing
Last year, Facebook agreed to pay nearly $5 million to settle several lawsuits that alleged its advertising platform allowed for discrimination in housing, employment and credit ads.
Justice Department Secures Groundbreaking Settlement Agreement with Meta Platforms, Formerly Known as Facebook, to Resolve Allegations of Discriminatory Advertising
The charge also said Facebook requires employees to arbitrate all racial discrimination and harassment claims in a secret forum where all rulings are "confidential and not available to the public." It's unclear whether Veneszee brought any claims in a secret forum.
MENLO PARK (CBS SF / CNN) -- One current Facebook manager and two job applicants have filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the Menlo Park-based company has "a general policy of discrimination against Black applicants and workers, including in hiring, evaluations, promotions, and pay."
Last year, Facebook agreed to pay nearly $5 million to settle several lawsuits that alleged its advertising platform allowed for discrimination in housing, employment and credit ads.
Thursday's employment discrimination charge states it's also on behalf of other Black workers who have been employed by Facebook, or who applied and were denied jobs at Facebook or other employment opportunities because of racial discrimination.
Black Facebook Employee, Job Applicants File EEOC Complaint Alleging Discrimination - CBS San Francisco
The charge also said Facebook requires employees to arbitrate all racial discrimination and harassment claims in a secret forum where all rulings are “confidential and not available to the public.” It’s unclear whether Veneszee brought any claims in a secret forum.
One current Facebook manager and two job applicants have filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that Facebook has “a general policy of discrimination against Black applicants and workers, including in hiring, evaluations, promotions, and pay.”
Thursday’s employment discrimination charge states it’s also on behalf of other Black workers who have been employed by Facebook, or who applied and were denied jobs at Facebook or other employment opportunities because of racial discrimination.
Last year, Facebook agreed to pay nearly $5 million to settle several lawsuits that alleged its advertising platform allowed for discrimination in housing, employment and credit ads.
Black Facebook employee and two job applicants file EEOC complaint alleging discrimination | CNN Business
The DOJ also argued that Facebook used a machine learning algorithm to restrict and create ad audiences, which had the effect of skewing delivery toward or against legally protected groups.
Workplace equityAllegationAgainst
Facebook is accused of discriminatory hiring practices
The Justice and Labor Departments allege Facebook engaged in discriminatory hiring practices against U.S.-based workers through historic agreements.
The Justice and Labor Departments say they've reached "historic" agreements with Facebook over what they allege were hiring practices that discriminated against U.S.-based workers.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook misleads consumers with fake likes
Facebook engages in a common practice of showing likes from friends next to products, misleading two thirds of consumers.
Likewise, two thirds of consumers are misled by a common practice on Facebook, which consists of showing “likes” from their friends next to other products than those that they had actually “liked”.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook committed misinformation in merger filings
Facebook committed two separate infringements by providing incorrect and misleading information in the merger notification form and in the reply to a Commission request for information.
Facebook committed two separate infringements by providing incorrect and misleading information in the merger notification form and in the reply to a Commission request for information.
Speech & moderationAllegationYou decide
Facebook is accused of approving paid ads with hate speech
Facebook is accused of approving paid ads containing hate speech and incitement against Palestinians.
What the FTC Facebook settlement means for consumers | Consumer Advice
Facebook will pay the largest civil penalty by anyone anywhere ever in a privacy case.
The FTC’s record-breaking $5 billion settlement requires Facebook to conduct a massive overhaul of its consumer privacy practices.
The FTC also alleges Facebook made other misleading statements about how it used facial recognition, consumers’ cell phone numbers, and other personal data.
For example, Facebook told users they could select settings to make information available just to “friends.” But despite that promise, Facebook allowed apps used by those friends to access consumers’ information, a decision that put money in Facebook’s pocket.
Facebook violated the order by again giving companies access to information that consumers said they didn’t want to share.
The 2012 FTC order put penalties in place if Facebook made misleading statements in the future about consumers’ control over the privacy of their personal information.
The FTC sued Facebook in 2012 for making misleading promises about the extent to which consumers could keep their personal information private.
As part of the resolution, which followed a year-long investigation, the FTC filed a complaint alleging that Facebook “subverted users’ privacy choices to serve its own business interests,” through false promises regarding users’ ability to control privacy settings, misrepresentations regarding the sharing of users’ personal data with third parties, and deceptive practices as to the collection and use of users’ telephone numbers.
In a settlement announced by the Federal Trade Commission [July 24, 2019], Facebook agreed to a $5 billion penalty and extensive remedial requirements to resolve an investigation into violations of a 2012 consent decree related to its data privacy practices.
The action started in 2023, immediately after Meta had requested consumers overnight to either subscribe to use Facebook and Instagram against a fee or to consent to Meta's use of their personal data to be shown personalised ads, allowing Meta to make revenue out of it (‘pay or consent'). Consumer protection authorities assessed several elements that could constitute misleading or aggressive practices, in particular whether Meta provided consumers upfront with true, clear and sufficient information.
Santa Fe, NM – In a major victory for the New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ), today a jury in the landmark State of New Mexico v. Facebook, Inc. trial found that Facebook committed 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA) by making false and misleading statements to New Mexico consumers about how the company collected, protected, shared, and used their personal information, and its claimed efforts to protect against misinformation and hate speech on its platform.
trial found that Facebook committed 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA) by making false and misleading statements to New Mexico consumers about how the company collected, protected, shared, and used their personal information, and its claimed efforts to protect against misinformation and hate speech on its platform.
USA: New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for over 43 million consumer protection law violations about users' privacy
USA: New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for over 43 million consumer protection law violations about users' privacy - Business and Human Rights Centre
A New Mexico jury on Friday found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy protections on the social media platform. It is now up to the judge to determine how much the company would pay, with attorneys representing the state asking for the maximum $5,000 penalty per violation.
In addition to the alleged misrepresentations, the complaint alleges that Facebook failed to adequately implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, as required by the 2012 Order.
Without this disclaimer, according to the complaint, Facebook violated the 2012 Order’s prohibition on misrepresentations because its privacy settings falsely represented that consumers could control the privacy of their data with respect to third parties simply by changing those privacy settings.
Remedies Along with the $5 billion civil penalty—which, per the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, will be paid to the Treasurer of the United States and deposited into the U.S. Treasury’s “General Fund”—the 2019 Order imposes injunctive relief that requires Facebook to implement certain privacy practices and organizational changes.
But if it is approved, Facebook will be required to pay a $5 billion civil penalty and make several changes to its privacy practices and corporate management structure.
According to the complaint, these practices conflicted with the 2012 Order’s requirement that Facebook implement and maintain a “comprehensive privacy program” designed to assess privacy risks.
In 2014, Facebook announced at a conference that it would no longer allow third-party developers to collect data on app users’ friends.
In particular, the 2012 Order prohibited Facebook from misrepresenting “the extent to which it maintains the privacy or security” of users’ information.
In 2012, the FTC charged Facebook with eight separate privacy-related violations, including that the company made deceptive claims about consumers’ ability to control the privacy of their personal data.
The assessor – who must be appointed with FTC approval – will provide an independent evaluation of Facebook’s privacy practices every two years.
Under the 2012 order, Facebook must honor consumers’ privacy choices or face an order enforcement action, which can result in substantial civil penalties not legally available to the FTC in an initial lawsuit.
The FTC’s $5 billion civil penalty against Facebook for violations of an earlier FTC order is record-breaking and history-making.
It’s designed to make all companies – not just Facebook – sit up, take notice, and rethink their practices.
In addition, the settlement requires Facebook to implement changes to its privacy practices, its corporate structure, and the role of CEO Mark Zuckerberg that are seismic in scope.
According to the complaint, another way Facebook misrepresented the extent to which users could control the privacy of their data related to a form of technology that raises particular concerns for many consumers: facial recognition.
Other than getting developers to click an “I agree” terms-and-conditions box when registering an app with the Facebook Platform, Facebook didn’t screen developers or their apps before giving them access to massive amounts of data that users had designated as private.
One specific count alleged that Facebook allowed users to choose settings that supposedly limited access to their information just to “friends” without adequate disclosures that another setting allowed that same information to be shared with the developers of apps those friends used.
In an April 2018 update to its Data Policy, Facebook represented to consumers, “Face recognition: If you have it turned on, we use face recognition technology to recognize you in photos, videos and camera experiences.” The complaint alleges that this statement was deceptive to tens of millions of users who have Facebook’s facial recognition setting, “Tag Suggestions,” because that setting was turned on by default and the updated Data Policy suggested that users would need to opt-in to having facial recognition enabled for their accounts.
Another way the FTC says Facebook violated the order was by failing to adequately assess and address privacy risks posed by third-party developers.
The FTC's eight-count complaint against Facebook is part of the agency's ongoing effort to make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to American consumers. It charges that the claims that Facebook made were unfair and deceptive, and violated federal law.
"Facebook's innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy.
The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises | Federal Trade Commission
The proposed settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.
Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises
The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:
Following a public comment period, the FTC has accepted as final a settlement with Facebook resolving charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
As set forth in his separate statement, Commissioner Rosch dissented from the acceptance of the final consent order, questioning whether Facebook's express denial of liability provided "a reason to believe" that the settlement was "in the interest of the public" and expressing concern that the final consent order may not unequivocally cover all representations made in the Facebook environment.
Facebook Must Obtain Consumers' Consent Before Sharing Their Information Beyond Established Privacy Settings
The settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including by giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining their express consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings, by maintaining a comprehensive privacy program to protect consumers' information, and by obtaining biennial privacy audits from an independent third party.
Following a yearlong investigation by the FTC, the Department of Justice will file a complaint on behalf of the Commission alleging that Facebook repeatedly used deceptive disclosures and settings to undermine users’ privacy preferences in violation of its 2012 FTC order.
“Despite repeated promises to its billions of users worldwide that they could control how their personal information is shared, Facebook undermined consumers’ choices,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons.
To prevent Facebook from deceiving its users about privacy in the future, the FTC’s new 20-year settlement order overhauls the way the company makes privacy decisions by boosting the transparency of decision making and holding Facebook accountable via overlapping channels of compliance.
The FTC alleges that Facebook violated the 2012 order by deceiving its users when the company shared the data of users’ Facebook friends with third-party app developers, even when those friends had set more restrictive privacy settings.
The $5 billion penalty against Facebook is the largest ever imposed on any company for violating consumers’ privacy and almost 20 times greater than the largest privacy or data security penalty ever imposed worldwide.
These services, however, allegedly failed to disclose that even when users chose the most restrictive sharing settings, Facebook could still share user information with the apps of the user’s Facebook friends—unless they also went to the “Apps Settings Page” and opted out of such sharing.
Facebook, Inc. will pay a record-breaking $5 billion penalty, and submit to new restrictions and a modified corporate structure that will hold the company accountable for the decisions it makes about its users’ privacy, to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated a 2012 FTC order by deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.
Among other things, the 2012 order prohibited Facebook from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information, and the extent to which it shares personal information, such as names and dates of birth, with third parties.
These tactics allowed the company to share users’ personal information with third-party apps that were downloaded by the user’s Facebook “friends.” The FTC alleges that many users were unaware that Facebook was sharing such information, and therefore did not take the steps needed to opt-out of sharing.
In addition to these violations of its 2012 order, the FTC alleges that Facebook violated the FTC Act’s prohibition against deceptive practices when it told users it would collect their phone numbers to enable a security feature, but did not disclose that it also used those numbers for advertising purposes.
The FTC alleges that four months after the 2012 order was finalized in August 2012, Facebook removed this disclosure from the central “Privacy Settings” page, even though it was still sharing data from an app user’s Facebook friends with third-party developers.
In May 2012, Facebook added a disclosure to its central “Privacy Settings” page that information shared with a user’s Facebook friends could also be shared with the apps used by those friends.
The FTC also alleges that Facebook misrepresented users’ ability to control the use of facial recognition technology with their accounts.
Additionally, Facebook launched various services such as “Privacy Shortcuts” in late 2012 and “Privacy Checkup” in 2014 that claimed to help users better manage their privacy settings.
FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook | Federal Trade Commission
The settlement stems from alleged violations of the FTC’s 2012 settlement order with Facebook.
“The Department of Justice is committed to protecting consumer data privacy and ensuring that social media companies like Facebook do not mislead individuals about the use of their personal information,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
The FTC separately announced that Facebook will pay a record-breaking $5 billion penalty and submit to new restrictions that will hold the company accountable for the decisions it makes about its users’ privacy as part of a settlement resolving allegations that the company violated a 2012 FTC privacy order.
FTC Gives Final Approval to Modify FTC’s 2012 Privacy Order with Facebook with Provisions from 2019 Settlement
In response to the federal court’s recent action, the Federal Trade Commission has formally approved amendments to its 2012 privacy order with Facebook to include the provisions that were incorporated in the settlement the Commission announced with the social network platform in July 2019.
In addition to the historic monetary penalty, the 2019 settlement includes unprecedented new restrictions on Facebook’s business operations and creates multiple channels of compliance.
The FTC in July 2019 announced a record-breaking $5 billion settlement with Facebook related to allegations that the company violated its 2012 FTC privacy order by deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.
FTC Gives Final Approval to Modify FTC’s 2012 Privacy Order with Facebook with Provisions from 2019 Settlement
Facebook Site Governance Page application settings privacy settings account notifications page help page for complaints about our privacy policies or practices help page to report use by a child under age 13 help page with info to help parents talk to children about safe internet use deleting an account reporting a deceased user reporting an impostor reporting abusive content reporting a compromised account requesting deletion of data for non-user removing Friend Finder contacts reporting and blocking third-party applications general explanation of third-party applications and how they access data
You can control whether we suggest that another user add you as a friend through your “search for you on Facebook” privacy setting.
You acknowledge Facebook has no obligations under the VPPA. 9.14 We do not guarantee that Platform will always be free. 9.15 You give us all rights necessary to enable your application to work with Facebook, including the right to: 9.15.1 incorporate your content into streams, profiles, and user action stories; 9.15.2 link to or frame your application; and 9.15.3 place content, including ads, around your application. 9.16 We can analyze your application, content, and data for any purpose, including commercial (such as for targeting the delivery of advertisements and indexing content for search). 9.17 To ensure your application is safe for users, we can audit it. 9.18 We can create applications that offer similar features and services to, or otherwise compete with, your application. 10.
We use your profile information, the addresses you import through our contact importers, and other relevant information, to help you connect with your friends, including making suggestions to you and other users that you connect with on Facebook.
We may collect information about you from other Facebook users, such as when a friend tags you in a photo, video, or place, provides friend details, or indicates a relationship with you. 3.
The intent of the consent agreement is to allow Facebook to continue to innovate, but in a truthful and forthcoming manner, consistent with the privacy choices its users have made. The complaint alleges that Facebook shared information in ways that were inconsistent with its statements to consumers.
Further, we allege that Facebook deceived consumers regarding numerous other privacy practices, including the protections provided by their privacy settings, access to their information by third- party Apps, sharing of users’ information with advertisers, and access to users’ information following deletion of their Facebook accounts.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that under these circumstances the most sensible approach is to ensure that Facebook does not misrepresent the privacy of user information going forward, that Facebook obtains affirmative consent from users prior to sharing information in a manner that materially exceeds their privacy settings, and that it establishes and maintains a comprehensive privacy program. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work.
20580 Office of t he S ecretary July 27, 2012 Michael Devine State of Washington Re: In the Matter of Facebook Inc., File No. 0923184 Dear Mr. Devine: Thank you for your comment on the Federal Trade Commission’s consent agreement in the above-entitled proceeding.
Further, in the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that under these circumstances the most sensible approach is to ensure that Facebook does not misrepresent the privacy of user information going forward, that Facebook obtains affirmative consent from users prior to sharing information in a manner that materially exceeds their privacy settings, and that it establishes and maintains a comprehensive privacy program. (2) You urge the Commission to prohibit Facebook from creating facial recognition profiles without users’ express consent.
In particular, the comprehensive privacy program mandated by the order will require Facebook to implement practices that are appropriate to the sensitivity of the information it collects.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the tracking of Facebook users across the web, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
(5) Finally, you ask the Commission to prohibit Facebook from secretly tracking its users across the web. Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the tracking of Facebook users across the web, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that under these circumstances the most sensible approach is to ensure that Facebook does not misrepresent the privacy of user information going forward, that Facebook obtains affirmative consent from users prior to sharing information in a manner that materially exceeds their privacy settings, and that it establishes and maintains a comprehensive privacy program. (6) Your comment notes that the proposed settlement does not refer to Facebook Payments, which you identify as an important Facebook subsidiary.
§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration. You suggest in your comment that Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) should be prohibited from making any changes to its privacy settings unless users opt-in to these changes.
Your comment focuses on five key concerns, which we address, in turn, below: (1) You ask the Commission to require Facebook to restore its privacy settings to those available in December 2009.
(“Facebook”) should be restricted from using its users’ personal information without first obtaining their consent.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the Timeline feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that under these circumstances the most sensible approach is to ensure that Facebook does not misrepresent the privacy of user information going forward, that Facebook obtains affirmative consent from users prior to sharing information in a manner that materially exceeds their privacy settings, and that is establishes and maintains a comprehensive privacy program. (2) You urge the Commission to prohibit Facebook from creating facial recognition profiles without users’ express consent.
With respect to your overarching concern that Facebook is sharing your information without your knowledge or consent, the proposed complaint contains broad allegations.
In particular, the proposed order requires Facebook to give clear and prominent notice and obtain a user’s affirmative express consent prior to any sharing of the user’s “nonpublic user information” with any third party, which materially exceeds the1 restrictions imposed by the user’s privacy setting(s).
In particular, the proposed order requires Facebook to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, and obtain biennial privacy audits by an independent third-party professional for twenty years.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing users’ ability to manage their information, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making false statements to users about their ability to delete their profile information.
Finally, you state that, unless Facebook openly discloses that it “owns” users’ information, it should be required to provide better privacy for users’ information. Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the ticker feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
As you are aware, when you share content with your “friends” on the site, those “friends” may still share your content with other users who are not your “friends.” Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing this feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the Timeline feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making false statements to users about their ability to delete their profile information.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing these specific issues, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing these particular features, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
In particular, you express concern that Facebook is sharing your information without your knowledge or consent, notifying your friends of your birthday without your permission, and emailing you after you have attempted to close your account.
Likewise, the affirmative express consent requirement, described above, is designed to ensure that Facebook upholds any privacy settings that it offers to users to protect such information. (3) You ask the Commission to make public the assessments required by the proposed order to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Commission recognizes the public interest in understanding and evaluating a company’s compliance with the law.
§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration. You suggest in your comment that Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) should be prohibited from making any changes in its privacy practices unless Facebook receives its users’ consent to make these changes.
10. 2 (1) You ask the Commission to require Facebook to restore its privacy settings to those available in December 2009.
Specifically, you express concern that Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook’s”) users are not adequately informed or protected because its privacy policies are confusing and difficult to locate, it does not clearly notify users of privacy changes, and it may not adequately monitor the privacy practices of its service providers. The Commission is committed to safeguarding consumer privacy and believes that the proposed order with Facebook will advance this objective.
(“Facebook”) should be prohibited from making any changes in its privacy practices unless Facebook receives its users’ consent to make these changes.
In the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing this particular feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
It is our hope that the prospect of substantial civil penalties – which Facebook does not face absent this order and did not face in 2009 – will have a significant deterrent effect on Facebook’s future conduct. You also urge that the Commission modify the proposed order to require Facebook to restore the privacy settings that were in place “when the user enrolled” in the site, in order to help place users in the same position they would have occupied, absent the allegedly unlawful changes to users’ privacy that it made in December 2009.
Likewise, the affirmative express consent requirement, described above, is designed to ensure that Facebook upholds privacy settings that it offers to users to protect such information. (3) You ask the Commission to make public the assessments required by the proposed order to the maximum extent permitted by law.
The proposed order requires Facebook to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program for all its products and services, and obtain biennial privacy audits by an independent third-party professional.
Moreover, the biennial privacy audits that the order requires Facebook to obtain from an independent third-party professional will help ensure that Facebook lives up to those obligations.
Further, you may find the Commission’s consumer education regarding SPAM to be useful, see www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/onguard/articles/spam.shtml. Although the proposed complaint does not specifically address the issue you cite, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration. You highlight your concerns with Facebook’s new Timeline feature and suggest that Facebook be prohibited from implementing such new features, unless users opt-in to these changes.
§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration. You express concern that Facebook requires users to provide their personal phone numbers to log into their accounts, which you state violates privacy and could undercut the protections of the Commission’s National Do Not Call Registry.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that under these circumstances the most sensible approach is to ensure that Facebook does not misrepresent the privacy of user information going forward, that Facebook obtains affirmative consent from users prior to sharing information in a manner that materially exceeds their privacy settings, and that it establishes and maintains a comprehensive privacy program. As a result of the broad allegations contained in the proposed complaint, the proposed order contains provisions designed to prevent Facebook from engaging in similar practices involving any Facebook product or service, as described above.
” security of “covered information.” Lastly, regarding the deletion of users’ information, the2 proposed order requires Facebook to (1) implement reasonable procedures to ensure that deleted data cannot be accessed by third parties after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty days, following its deletion and (2) as part of its comprehensive privacy program, consider and address any reasonably foreseeable, material privacy risks related to its retention of users’ covered information.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing Facebook’s collection or handling of users’ phone numbers, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, by making other false promises regarding privacy, and by making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without users’ consent.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations regarding the Timeline feature, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by, among other things, making material, retroactive changes to users’ privacy settings without their consent in December 2009, by falsely representing to users the protections provided by their privacy settings, and by making other false promises regarding privacy, including the privacy of information that users had deleted from their profiles.
Although the proposed complaint does not contain allegations specifically addressing the capabilities that Facebook provides to Apps for deleting content, it does allege that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making false statements to users about their ability to delete their profile information.
C-4365 FACEBOOK, INC., ) a corporation. ) ____________________________________) DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission, having initia ted an investigation of certain acts and practices of the Respondent named in the caption hereof, and the Respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft Complaint that the Bureau of Consumer Protection proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued, would charge the Respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.
Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 56 INTRODUCTION The Court should deny Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss because the Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint states a claim that Facebook holds monopoly power over personal social networking (“PSN”) services in the United States, and is violating the antitrust laws by maintaining its monopoly through means other than competition on the merits.
Similarly, Facebook routinely granted third-party developers broad permissions to access user and Affected Friend data without first performing any checks on whether such permissions were consistent with a Facebook Platform policy requiring that apps request only data necessary to run the app or to enhance the user’s app experience.
At the April 30, 2014, F8 Conference, Facebook publicly announced that it would no longer allow third-party developers to access Affected Friend data.
In 2012, after an FTC investigation, Facebook settled allegations that its practice of sharing Affected Friends’ data with third-party developers of apps was deceptive.
Even though Facebook acknowledged the data-privacy risks associated with the data access it gave to third-party developers, on numerous occasions, while determining whether to continue granting a particular developer access to user data, it considered how large a financial benefit the developer would provide to Facebook, such as through spending money on advertisements or offering reciprocal data-sharing arrangements.
In fact, Facebook continued to allow millions of third-party developers access to Affected Friend data for at least another year.
Facebook made several changes to the Privacy Settings and Apps Settings pages throughout 2013 and 2014.
The Original Complaint also asserted that Facebook misled users by placing the option to block third-party developers from accessing their information through Friends not prominently on Facebook’s Privacy Settings page, but rather, on a page called, at various times, “Applications,” “Apps,” or “Applications and Websites.” This Applications page allowed users, among other things, to restrict the information that third-party developers of Friends’ apps could access.
In fact, Facebook did not limit its sharing of consumer information with third- party developers based on those privacy settings.
Additionally, Facebook did not limit its sharing of consumer information with third-party developers based on Facebook’s desktop and mobile privacy settings, including those on the Privacy Settings page, inline settings, Privacy Shortcuts, profile settings, and Privacy Checkup.
Facebook knew or should have known that its conduct violated the 2012 Order because it was engaging in the very same conduct that the Commission alleged was deceptive in Count One of the original Complaint that led to the 2012 Order.
To encourage users to share information, Facebook promises users that they can control the privacy of their information through Facebook’s privacy settings.
After Facebook made these changes, to find the Apps Setting page, a user on the mobile interface had to go to the main settings menu and click on the heading labeled “Apps” or “Apps and Websites,” as shown in the below example: Page 23 of 50
Count 3—Misrepresenting the Extent to Which Facebook Made User Data Accessible to Third Parties 166.
During the period from December 2012 through April 2014, Facebook represented to consumers that they could control the privacy of their data by using desktop and mobile privacy settings to limit the information Facebook could share with their Facebook Friends, including those on the Privacy Settings page, inline settings, Privacy Shortcuts, and profile settings.
C-4365, the Commission charged Facebook with engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), for, among other things, its practices associated with giving third-party developers access to Affected Friends’ data.
Facebook did not inform its assessor that it was engaging in this practice.
Financial Considerations Influenced Facebook’s Decisions Regarding Whether to Restrict Third-Party Developers’ Access to User Data 88.
Specifically, Count One of the Original Complaint alleged that Facebook was engaging in deceptive acts and practices by representing to users that Facebook’s privacy settings allowed them to restrict to limited audiences (e.g., “Only Friends”) the sharing of non- public personal information that they added to their Facebook profiles and their non-public Facebook posts (collectively, “Profile Information”), when, in fact, those settings did not prevent Facebook from sharing that information with third-party developers of apps installed by the users’ Friends.
As described above in Paragraphs 128-43, Facebook represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that users’ phone numbers provided for two-factor authentication would be used for security purposes and, in some instances, to make it easier to connect with Friends on Facebook.
The Platform Policies outlined a number of privacy obligations and restrictions, such as limits on an app’s use of data received through Facebook, requirements that an app obtain consent for certain data uses, and restrictions on selling or transferring user data.
Facebook never disclosed this disparate enforcement practice to the third-party assessor charged by the 2012 Order with assessing the implementation and effectiveness of Facebook’s privacy program, nor did Facebook disclose its enforcement practices to the Commission in its biennial assessment reports mandated by the 2012 Order.
Case 1:19-cv-02184 Document 1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 43 of 50 VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ORDER Count 1—Misrepresenting the Extent to Which Users Could Control the Privacy of Their Data and the Extent to Which Facebook Made User Data Accessible to Third Parties 155.
Facebook also removed from the mobile Privacy Settings page the link to the Apps Settings page.
In March 2018, Facebook announced it had launched an internal investigation into the potential misuse of user data by third-party developers.
Additionally, from April 30, 2015, to at least June 2018, Facebook continued to represent to consumers that they could control the privacy of their data by using Facebook’s desktop and mobile privacy settings to limit to their Facebook Friends the information Facebook could share, including those on the Privacy Settings page, inline settings, Privacy Shortcuts, profile settings, and Privacy Checkup.
DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT Facebook’s Desktop Privacy Settings Failed to Disclose That Users’ Privacy Choices Would Be Undermined by Default Settings That Allowed Facebook to Share Users’ Data with Third-Party Developers of Their Friends’ Apps 35.
Count 2—Misrepresenting the Extent to Which Users Could Control the Privacy of Their Data and the Extent to Which Facebook Made User Data Accessible to Third Parties 160.
However, none of the changes sought to inform users that sharing data with their Friends also allowed Facebook to share that data with any of the more than one million third-party developers whose apps could be used by their Friends.
At least tens of millions of American users relied on Facebook’s deceptive privacy settings and statements to restrict the sharing of their information to their Facebook Friends, when, in fact, third-party developers could access and collect their data through their Friends’ use of third-party developers’ apps.
of the Commission Order prohibits Facebook from misrepresenting “the extent to which Respondent makes or has made covered information accessible to third parties.” 157.
Facebook’s default settings were set so that Facebook would share with the third-party developer of an App User’s app not only the App User’s data, but also data of the App User’s Facebook Friends (“Affected Friends”), even if those Affected Friends had not themselves installed the app.
The FTC tied its calculation of the range of civil penalties it sought in this matter to the public’s approximately 900 million views of Facebook webpages containing allegedly deceptive statements about data privacy, equating each view to an alleged violation of the 2012 Order.
Count 3); (3) by inconsistently enforcing its privacy policies against app developers who violated those policies, taking less severe action against app developers that generated significant revenue for Facebook (id.
Case 1:19-cv-02184 Document 2 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND Facebook operates a website (www.facebook.com) and smartphone application (“app”) that allow Facebook users to connect with “Friends.” In 2012, Facebook settled allegations that its information-sharing practices and privacy settings were deceptive trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by consenting to entry of an FTC administrative order (the “2012 Order”).
Facebook also agreed to maintain a privacy program reasonably designed to address the risks of giving app developers access to user data.
users was accessed by a third party in violation of Facebook’s policies; • add important recordkeeping requirements related to third-party access to protected user information; and 5
The Complaint here alleges that Facebook violated the 2012 Order in multiple ways: (1) by maintaining deceptive settings that misled users about how to protect their information from being shared by Facebook with third-party developers of apps used by their Facebook Friends (Compl.
The Commission considered the matter and determined that it had reason to believe that Respondent has violated the Decision and Order the Commission previously issued in the matter In re Facebook, Inc., C-4365, 2012 FTC LEXIS 135 (F.T.C. July 27, 2012) and the FTC Act, and that a Complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect.
ORDER MODIFYING PRIOR DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a Decision and Order against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook) in Docket C-4365 on July 27, 2012 (“2012 order”).1 On July 24, 2019, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the Attorney General by the Commission, filed a complaint (“2019 complaint”) in federal district court alleging that Facebook violated the 2012 order in three ways: (1) by misrepresenting the extent to which users could control the privacy of their data and the steps they needed to take to implement such controls; (2) misrepresenting the information the Company made accessible to third parties; and (3) failing to establish, implement, and maintain a privacy program reasonably designed to address privacy risks.
The 2012 Order also required Facebook to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program that was reasonably designed to address privacy risks related to the development and management of current and future products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of its users’ personal information.
According to the complaint, Facebook misled users about its privacy settings and privacy policy changes, how much it shared its users’ personal information with third-party application developers and outside advertisers, and the steps it took to verify the security and privacy practices of third-party application developers.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Facebook maintained deceptive settings that misled users about how to protect their information from being shared by Facebook with third-party developers of apps used by their Facebook Friends; promised to stop giving app developers access to the data of app users’ Friends, when in fact many app developers continued to have such access; inconsistently enforced its privacy policies against app developers who violated those policies, taking less severe action against app developers that generated significant revenue for Facebook; and implied to users that they could “turn on” facial-recognition technology associated with their posted photos and videos when, in fact, that technology was “on” for those users by default.
The investigation culminated in a complaint, which subsequently was filed in district court by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Commission, alleging that Facebook violated the order by (1) misrepresenting the extent to which users could control the privacy of their data and the steps required to implement such controls; (2) misrepresenting the information that Facebook made accessible to third parties; and (3) failing to establish, implement, and maintain a privacy program reasonably designed to address privacy risks.
Additionally, the complaint claimed that Facebook violated Section 5 of the FTC Act when it told users it would collect their telephone numbers to enable a 2
The complaint also alleged, among other things, that Facebook told users that, after they deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible, when in truth Facebook continued allowing access to such content even after account deactivation or deletion.
The 2012 Order barred Facebook from making misrepresentations about the extent to which it maintains the privacy or security of its users’ personal information, the extent to which its users can control the privacy of that information, the extent to which Facebook makes its users’ personal information accessible to third parties, and the steps it has taken to verify third-party privacy protections.
settlement that requires Facebook to implement a comprehensive, multi-faceted set of compliance
In a complaint filed today, the United States alleges that Facebook violated an administrative order issued by the FTC in 2012 by misleading users about the extent to which third-party application developers could access users’ personal information.
The Department of Justice, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced a settlement that requires Facebook to implement a comprehensive, multi-faceted set of compliance measures designed to improve user privacy and provide additional protections for user information. The settlement also requires Facebook to pay an unprecedented $5 billion civil penalty — the most ever imposed in an FTC case and among the largest civil penalties ever obtained by the federal government. In a complaint filed today, the United States alleges that Facebook violated an administrative order issued by the FTC in 2012 by misleading users about the extent to which third-party application developers could access users’ personal information.
The settlement also requires Facebook to pay an unprecedented $5 billion civil penalty — the most ever imposed in an FTC case and among the largest civil penalties ever obtained by the federal government. In a complaint filed today, the United States alleges that Facebook violated an administrative order issued by the FTC in 2012 by misleading users about the extent to which third-party application developers could access users’ personal information.
“This settlement’s historic penalty and compliance terms will benefit American consumers, and the Department expects Facebook to treat its privacy obligations with the utmost seriousness.” “Despite repeated promises to its millions of world-wide users that they could control how their personal information is shared, Facebook took steps to undermine consumers’ choices,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons.
settlement that requires Facebook to implement a comprehensive, multi-faceted set of compliance measures designed to improve user privacy and provide additional protections for user information. The settlement also requires Facebook to pay an unprecedented $5 billion civil penalty — the most ever imposed in an FTC case and among the largest civil penalties ever obtained by the federal government. In a complaint filed today, the United States alleges that Facebook violated an administrative order issued by the FTC in 2012 by misleading users about the extent to which third-party application developers could access users’ personal information.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook fails to disclose data sales
Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties.
New Mexico argued that Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties and allowed harmful content to spread when doing so benefited the company's bottom line.
New Mexico argued that Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties and allowed harmful content to spread when doing so benefited the company's bottom line.
Reproductive careConfirmedYou decide
Facebook offers travel reimbursements for abortion care
Facebook said it would provide travel expense reimbursements to employees accessing reproductive care in another state, as permitted by law.
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said it would offer travel expense reimbursements “to the extent permitted by law” for employees who need to access reproductive care in another state.
Political spendingConfirmedYou decide
Facebook's parent company donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund
WASHINGTON (TNND) — The parent company of Facebook and Instagram confirmed it donated $1 million to the inaugural fund of President-Elect Donald Trump.
The parent company of Facebook and Instagram confirmed it donated $1 million to the inaugural fund of President-Elect Donald Trump.
WASHINGTON (TNND) — The parent company of Facebook and Instagram confirmed it donated $1 million to the inaugural fund of President-Elect Donald Trump.
"We allege in our complaint, and what we're prepared to prove at trial, is that they're deceiving consumers about Facebook and Instagram's dangers," said New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport in an interview with NPR.
Corporate conductRecallAgainst
Facebook recalls Oculus Quest 2 face foam for skin irritation
Facebook recalled removable foam facial interfaces for Oculus Quest 2 headsets due to a skin irritation hazard.
Facebook Technologies Recalls Removable Foam Facial Interfaces for Oculus Quest 2 Virtual Reality Headsets Due to Skin Irritation Hazard (Recall Alert)
Facebook Technologies Recalls Removable Foam Facial Interfaces for Oculus Quest 2 Virtual Reality Headsets Due to Skin Irritation Hazard (Recall Alert)
Speech & moderationConfirmedYou decide
Facebook removes Hezbollah-linked accounts
Facebook removed 15 Facebook and six Instagram accounts tied to Hezbollah for posting Hebrew content criticizing Israel's U.S. dependence and war-related humanitarian conditions.
Another 15 accounts on Facebook and six accounts on Instagram tied to Lebanon's Hezbollah were removed for posting content in Hebrew that criticized Israel's dependence on U.S. support and the humanitarian conditions caused by Israel's war.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook flags posts on health risks
Facebook flagged posts discussing health risks related to derailment according to the Government Accountability Project.
Facebook (Meta) was, according to the Government Accountability Project, fairly quick to try to suppress – by means of deleting or flagging – posts that raised the issue of possible health risks related to the derailment.
Workplace equityAllegationAgainst
Facebook removed content in support of Palestine, citing its moderation policies
Human Rights Watch found that the censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook is systemic and global.
Human Rights Watch found that the censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook is systemic and global.
Human Rights Watch documented hundreds of cases where the mere neutral mention of Hamas on Instagram and Facebook triggered the DOI policy, prompting the platforms to immediately remove posts, stories, comments, and videos, and restrict accounts that posted them.
On May 7, 2021, a group of 30 human rights and digital rights organizations denounced social media companies for “systematically silencing users protesting and documenting the evictions of Palestinian families from their homes in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem.”[43] In October 2021, Human Rights Watch published a report that documented Facebook’s censorship of the discussion of rights issues pertaining to Israel and Palestine and warned that Meta was “silencing many people arbitrarily and without explanation, replicating online some of the same power imbalances and rights abuses that we see on the ground.”[44]
Instagram and Facebook have in several instances since October 7 suspended or permanently disabled the accounts of prominent Palestinian content creators, independent Palestinian journalists, and Palestinian activists.
Other accounts, including the Instagram account of Let’s Talk Palestine, which posts educational content about Palestine, reported being temporarily suspended.[85] Meta said, “These accounts were initially locked for security reasons after signs of compromise, and we’re working to make contact with the account owners to make sure they have access.” The Palestine-based Quds News Network reported that its Facebook page was permanently deleted[86] and that its Instagram account was suspended.[87] Mondoweiss correspondent Leila Warah, who is based in the West Bank, reported in October that Instagram suspended her account.
Meta’s reliance on automation for content moderation is a significant factor in the erroneous enforcement of its policies, which has resulted in the removal of non-violative content in support of Palestine on Instagram and Facebook.
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is facing scrutiny over allegations of censorship of pro-Palestinian content by human rights groups and news outlets like the BBC.
Labor & working conditionsConfirmedIn favor
Facebook raises U.S. contract worker wage to $20/hour
Facebook raises minimum wage for U.S. contract workers to $20 per hour.
Facebook is going to sell its army of content reviewers a higher hourly wage and additional counseling opportunities, the company announced Monday morning.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Facebook (FB.O) raised wages for its contract workers, such as cafeteria staff and janitors, to a minimum of $15 per hour amid rising tension over the wage gap between the technology sector's elite and the lower-paid workers.
Facebook raises minimum wage for U.S. contract workers to $20 per hour
Facebook last raised minimum wages for contract workers in 2015 to $15 per hour in its bid to narrow the widening gap between the technology sector's elite and the lower-paid workers.
Labor & working conditionsConfirmedIn favor
Facebook raises hourly pay for Menlo Park workers
Facebook implemented the wage increase for some workers at its Menlo Park headquarters as of May 1.
"For years, Facebook operated as if the rules that apply to everyone else didn't apply to them.
Corporate conductProposed settlementAgainst
Facebook was prohibited from deceiving users with respect to its compliance with
To address these allegations, the proposed order’s prohibition on misrepresentations specifically prohibits Facebook from deceiving users with respect to its compliance with and participation in the Safe Harbor Framework.
To address these allegations, the proposed order’s prohibition on misrepresentations specifically prohibits Facebook from deceiving users with respect to its compliance with and participation in the Safe Harbor Framework.
Corporate conductAllegationAgainst
Facebook is accused of violating antitrust laws
Facebook is accused of violating antitrust laws, prompting the FTC to bring suit under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
Section 13(b) of the FTC Act provides the FTC with statutory authority to bring suit in this Court because the Complaint’s allegations establish that the FTC has determined that it “has reason to believe” that Facebook “is violating” the antitrust laws.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook abandons 10-year initiative
Facebook has largely abandoned its work on a 10-year initiative.
Yet not even halfway through its 10-year commitment, Facebook’s parent company has largely abandoned its work on the initiative.
Workplace equitySettlementAgainst
Facebook agreed to train its employees in anti-discrimination rules
Facebook also agreed in the settlement announced Tuesday to train its employees in anti-discrimination rules and to conduct more widespread advertising and recruitment for job opportunities in its permanent labor certification program, which allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently.
Facebook also agreed in the settlement announced Tuesday to train its employees in anti-discrimination rules and to conduct more widespread advertising and recruitment for job opportunities in its permanent labor certification program, which allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently.
Climate & energyConfirmedIn favor
Facebook cuts greenhouse-gas emissions
Facebook has cut its greenhouse gas emissions significantly over the past few years.
Over the past few years, Facebook has cut its greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook agrees to hate speech code of conduct
Facebook agreed to the European Union’s hate speech code of conduct, committing to review and remove most illegal content complaints within 24 hours and to be audited by European regulators.
After a year of negotiations, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube agreed to the European Union’s hate speech code of conduct, which commits them to review and remove the majority of valid complaints about illegal content within 24 hours and to be audited by European regulators.
Workplace equityConfirmedIn favor
Facebook releases diversity figures
Facebook released diversity figures showing its US workforce was 2% Black in 2014.
Meanwhile, the SEC penalized Facebook for making misleading public disclosures by presenting the risk of misuse of user data as hypothetical, even though numerous employees within the company knew that such misuse had, in fact, occurred.
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a related $100 million resolution of charges that Facebook made misleading public disclosures in connection with data privacy risks.
Our colleagues from the British Data Protection Authority dealt with this case and they ruled that Facebook was clearly liable since "A company of its size and expertise should have known better and it should have done better," and fined the tech giant half a million pounds for the data breach. While it was the biggest fine available to the British authority at that time, let's be honest, it is peanuts for a company like Facebook.
The data of 87 million Facebook users were exploited.
They accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks.
Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million.
Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped on Friday a decision on whether to allow shareholders to proceed with a securities fraud lawsuit accusing Meta's Facebook of misleading investors about the misuse of the social media platform's user data.
The plaintiffs in the Facebook case claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users.
Facebook's stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump's successful U.S. presidential campaign in 2016.
Facebook was ordered to pay a $100 million civil penalty to the Commission.
Privacy & surveillanceProposed settlementAgainst
Facebook proposed settlement over faces privacy enforcement action
Further, in the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications.
Zuckerberg to make privacy decisions unilaterally” and solves “concrete problems, rather than venting frustration with individuals.” Considerations for Congress Along with the record-setting penalties and high-profile nature of Facebook’s privacy dispute, the 2019 Order highlights the strengths and limitations of the FTC’s role as a privacy regulator.
Further, in the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work.
Further, in the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications.
In the future, if you have specific information suggesting that Facebook is not maintaining reasonable privacy or security for user information, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work.
Further, the proposed order mandates that Facebook file true and accurate written reports with the Commission describing its compliance with the order, and imposes recordkeeping requirements on the company regarding, among other things, consumer complaints that relate to conduct prohibited by the order and documents that call into question Facebook’s compliance with the order.
Importantly, should Facebook violate any term of the final order, it could be liable for civil monetary penalties of up to $16,000 per violation per day (pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act).
In this case, should Facebook violate any term of the final order, it could be liable for civil monetary penalties of up to $16,000 per violation per day (pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act).
Privacy & surveillanceProposed settlementIn favor
Facebook proposed settlement over minimizes data collection
For example, the proposed order requires Facebook to (1) implement reasonable procedures to ensure that deleted data cannot be accessed by third parties after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty days, following its deletion and (2) as part of its comprehensive privacy program, consider and address any reasonably foreseeable, material privacy risks related to its retention of users’ covered information.
In particular, regarding the deletion of users’ information, the proposed order requires Facebook to (1) implement reasonable procedures to ensure that deleted data cannot be accessed by third parties after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty days, following its deletion and (2) as part of its comprehensive privacy program, consider and address any reasonably foreseeable, material privacy risks related to its retention of users’ covered information.
Lastly, regarding the deletion of users’ information, the proposed order will require Facebook to (1) implement reasonable procedures to ensure that deleted data cannot be accessed by third parties after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty days, following its deletion and (2) as part of its comprehensive privacy program, consider and address any reasonably foreseeable, material privacy risks related to its retention of users’ covered information.
For example, the proposed order requires Facebook to (1) implement reasonable procedures to ensure that deleted data cannot be accessed by third parties after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty days, following its deletion and (2) as part of its comprehensive privacy program, consider and address any reasonably foreseeable, material privacy risks related to its retention of users’ covered information.
Privacy & surveillanceProposed settlementIn favor
Facebook proposed settlement over limits tracking without consent
• Facebook cannot use phone numbers it received specifically for security purposes for advertising.
Congressional Research Service 3 affirmatively required Facebook to obtain users’ consent before sharing their information in a manner materially exceeding “the restrictions imposed by a user’s privacy setting(s).” Facebook was further obligated to adopt a “comprehensive privacy program” designed to assess privacy risks and to “protect the privacy and confidentiality of [consumers’] information.” The order also required an independent third party to audit this privacy program every two years for a twenty-year period.
The proposed settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.
Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognition technology, and obtain affirmative express user consent prior to any use that materially exceeds its prior disclosures to users;
Finally, the order imposes a sea change in the way Facebook addresses consumers’ privacy with a belt-and-suspenders approach to compliance.
Privacy & surveillanceProposed settlementIn favor
Facebook proposed settlement over limits tracking without consent
Should Facebook violate any term of the final order, it could be liable for civil2 monetary penalties of up to $16,000 per violation per day (pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act).
‘‘Covered information’’ is defined broadly as ‘‘information from or about an individual consumer, including but not limited to: (a) A first or last name; (b) a home or other physical address, including street name and name of city or town; (c) an email address or other online contact information, such as an instant messaging user identifier or a screen name; (d) a mobile or other telephone number; (e) photos and videos; (f) Internet Protocol (‘‘IP’’) address, User ID, or other persistent identifier; (g) physical location; or (h) any information combined with any of (a) through (g) above.’’ Part II of the proposed order requires Facebook to give its users a clear and prominent notice and obtain their affirmative express consent before sharing their previously-collected information with third parties in any way that materially exceeds the restrictions imposed by their privacy settings.
Should Facebook violate any term of the final order, it could be liable for civil2 monetary penalties of up to $16,000 per violation per day (pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act).
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook — Instagram
Commission opens formal proceedings against Facebook and Instagram under the Digital Services Act Today, the European Commission has opened formal proceedings to assess whether Meta, the provider of Facebook and Instagram, may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) .
Commission opens formal proceedings against Facebook and Instagram under the Digital Services Act Brussels, 30 April 2024 Today, the European Commission has opened formal proceedings to assess whether Meta, the provider of Facebook and Instagram, may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) . Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: "This Commission has created means to protect European citizens from targeted disinformation and manipulation by third countries.
Commission opens formal proceedings against Facebook and Instagram under the Digital Services Act Today, the European Commission has opened formal proceedings to assess whether Meta, the provider of Facebook and Instagram, may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) .
Corporate conductRulingAgainst
Facebook faces ruling over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace
Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace.
Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace Brussels, 14 November 2024 The European Commission has fined Meta €797.72 million for breaching EU antitrust rules by tying its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook and by imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers. The infringement Meta is a US multinational technology company.
The Commission is also concerned that Meta is imposing unfair trading conditions on Facebook Marketplace's competitors for its own benefit. If confirmed, these practices would infringe Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU') that prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position. Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager , in charge of competition policy, said: “With its Facebook social network, Meta reaches globally billions of monthly users and millions active advertisers.
More information is available here . (For more information: Adalbert Jahnz – Tel.: +32 2 295 31 56; Anna Wartberger – Tel.: +32 2 298 25 04) Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace The European Commission has fined Meta €797.72 million for breaching EU antitrust rules by tying its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook and by imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers. The Commission's investigation found that Meta is dominant in the market for personal social networks , which is at least European Economic Area (‘EEA') wide, as well as in the national markets for online display advertising on social media .
Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace
Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Facebook — local journalists
In March 2019, the company now known as Meta announced the Facebook Journalism Project, a plan to spend $300 million over three years “supporting local journalists and newsrooms with their newsgathering needs in the immediate future, and helping local news organizations build sustainable business models.”
In March 2019, the company now known as Meta announced the Facebook Journalism Project, a plan to spend $300 million over three years “supporting local journalists and newsrooms with their newsgathering needs in the immediate future, and helping local news organizations build sustainable business models.”
“People want more local news, and local newsrooms are looking for more support,” Campbell Brown wrote in 2019 when Meta (then Facebook) announced its three-year, $300 million commitment to global “news programs, partnerships, and content.”