Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki...
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Monday March 22, 2021 @06:08PM
(#26547964)
"Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook "like' button somewhere on the page. Is Facebook really a "direct participant" ..."
The term "direct particpant" is not from the statute. Those are the words of Facebook's defense lawyers.
The statute provides an exemption for a "party" to communication, but it does not define the term "party".
The 1st and 7th Circuits, when faced with cases similar to this one involving third party "tech" companies that subsist on internet advertising, have interpreted the term "party" to exclude third parties such as Facebook. The 3rd Circuit however has interpreted it to include them. The 9th Circuit on hearing Facebook's case followed the 1st and 7th Circuits. Facebook wants the 3rd Circuit's interpetation to be the law of the land. The Supreme Court denied Facebook's appeal.
As such, the hypothetical requires some more facts. Where is Company A domiciled? Where do they do business? What state do you live in?
The term "direct particpant" is not from the statute. Those are the words of Facebook's defense lawyers.
The statute provides an exemption for a "party" to communication, but it does not define the term "party".
The 1st and 7th Circuits, when faced with cases similar to this one involving third party "tech" companies that subsist on internet advertising, have interpreted the term "party" to exclude third parties such as Facebook. The 3rd Circuit however has interpreted it to include them. The 9th Circuit on hearing Facebook's case followed the 1st and 7th Circuits. Facebook wants the 3rd Circuit's interpetation to be the law of the land. The Supreme Court denied Facebook's appeal.
As such, the hypothetical requires some more facts. Where is Company A domiciled? Where do they do business? What state do you live in?