Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 18.1
IN RE: ZYNGA & IN RE: FACEBOOK PRIVACY LITIGATIONS
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
750 F.3d 1098; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8662 [May 8, 2014]
FACTS:
Facebook operates Facebook.com, a social networking website. Zynga is an independent online
game company that designs, develops, and provides social gaming applications that are accessible
to users of Facebook.
Facebook does not charge any fees to sign up for its social networking service. Upon registration,
Facebook assigns each user a unique Facebook User ID. The User ID is a string of numbers, but a
user can modify the ID to be the user’s actual name or invented screen name.
The Plaintiffs represent a group of Facebook and Zynga game users who claim that the companies
disclosed their confidential information to third parties without authorization.
Specifically, when Facebook users clicked on advertising links or links to Zynga games, the webpage
would send an “HTTP request” with a “reference header.”
The referral header contained the user’s Facebook ID and the address of their Facebook page.
According to the Plaintiffs, this private information was shared with advertisers.
The Plaintiffs sued Facebook and Zynga, alleging that the disclosure violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and Stored Communications Act (SCA).
PROCEDURE: The District Court dismissed the case with prejudice, and the United States Court of
Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether the shared information (HTTP request and reference header) constituted a protected
communication under the ECPA and/or the SCA?
RULE: Title I of ECPA amended the existing Wiretap Act, provides that (with certain exceptions), “a
person or entity,” (1) “providing an electronic communication service to the public,” (2) “shall not
intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or
an agent thereof),” (3) “while in transmission on that service,” (4) “to any person or entity other than
an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended
recipient.”
“The ‘contents’ of a communication are defined as ‘any information concerning the substance,
purport, or meaning of that communication.’ Under the EPCA, the term ‘contents’ refers to the
intended message conveyed by the communication, and does not include record information regarding
the characteristics of the message that is generated in the course of the communication.”
REASONING:
1. The Stored Communications Act incorporates the Wiretap Act’s definition of “contents,”…. It also
differentiates between contents and record information. Section 2702(c) (6) permits an electronic
communications service or remote computing service to “divulge a record or other information
pertaining to a subscriber or to customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by the law).”
2. The Stored Communications Act generally precludes a covered entity from disclosing the contents
meaning” of a communication.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Under the Stored Communications Act, “a person or entity (1) “providing remote computing service
to the public” (2) “shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any
communication” (3) “which is carried or maintained on that service…on behalf of, and received by
means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of
communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of
such service” (4) “solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to
