Jackson v. Facebook, Inc.
COMPLAINT against defendant Facebook, Inc., filed by Willie Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope, # 2 Judge Assignment Label)(WAF)
FEB 13 2013
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
FACE BOOK Inc.
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT
COMES NOW, Willie Jackson, (hereinafter Petitioner) through pro'se filing this complaint
against Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (hereinafter, Facebook) , pursuant to Rule 8 (2) (3) and Rule 3 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and supporting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and supporting Federal
Statutes. In support hereof petitioner states the following:
That petitioner is a Citizen of a state outside of California and moves this Court for leave to allow
this petition pursuant to Title 28 U.s.C 1331 (a) (1) as it relates to the diversity issue. Petitioner brings
this Claim for actual damages and/or punitive damages in the sum of $150,00 for violation of
petitioner's right to privacy. In the alternative, the minimum of $10,000. Such privacy rights under the
Constitution include the right to keep certain types of information private. Petitioner will show
entitlement to relief sought, thereby satisfying the required standing under Article III. Petitioner will
further show and "injury-in-fact." A clear violation of the Federal Statute which is an unauthorized use
of personal information including but not limited to an invasion of privacy. Plaintiff is entitled to relief
by electing statutory damages. Regardless of the adequacy of the evidence offered as to the actual
damages, Plaintiff is requesting the consideration of this Courts discretion pertaining to the profits of
Facebook from such an invasion. This court has a wide discretion in determining the amount of
Statutory damages to be awarded where the maximum damage amount is $500,000 for a single
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
In 2009 petitioner became a subscriber to the Facebook website, thereby agreeing to the terms
account and viSit a website with the like button or another social plugin, your browser sends us a more
limited set of information." For Example, "Because you are not logged in to Facebook, we do not
receive your user ID."
On or about February 2010 up until May 21 st 2010, defendant Facebook transmitted to
advertisement. Facebook had unlawfully tracked plaintiffs use even after he was offline, in violation of
18 U.s.C 2511. Defendant Facebook has admitted that is has been watching the web pages of its
members - even when they have logged out. This information has been uncovered, and the practices of
tracking users interest thereby making a profit from illegally gaining a target market for advertisers.
Plaintiff has just recently discovered this information after so much public information pertaining to
these illegal acts of Facebook, and (technology bloggers) publishing the evidence. Plaintiff makes the
1. Facebook violated his civil rights with full knowledge and intent of breaching the policy
agreement. 18 U.S.C 2511.
2. Facebook violated plaintiffs right to privacy thereby causing an injury-in-fact under Article III of
the constitution of the United States.
3. Facebook breached their privacy agreement which is a substantial factor in causing additional
harm to plaintiff, coupled with the Statutory damages addressed herein.
Facebook has gained an economic benefit as a result ofthe clear violation of privacy, and the
breach. These findings of fact, and conclusions of law, although there exist no actual proof to
harm, the punitive damages based on the profits alone demand that a civil penalty would be
appropriate. The violations that Facebook is presently responsible for are ongoing at the time of
this complaint and could very well continue into the future if undeterred. This is the only action
available to redress injuries and abating violations to help prevent any future ones.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
If this court finds that defendant breached the contract in this action, you must award
the plaintiff damages in an amount that will fully compensate the plaintiff for harm that the
breach caused to the plaintiff, unless some other rule of law on which plaintiff instructs you
limits the amount that plaintiff can recover. However, plaintiff is entitled to recover only for
harm that was caused but the breach. Such harm that is caused is whenever the breach was a
substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Therefore this Court may reward plaintiff
damages for harm only if it finds that the breach was a substantial factor in bringing about the
Furthermore, the plaintiff may recover only for those harms that the parties could have been
reasonably expected to realize at the time the contract was made, were likely to result if the
contract was breached. This does not mean that any party had to actually realize that a
particular harm would result from a breach of the contract, nor does it mean that any party
would have been able to foresee the precise manner in which a harm would occur. It does
mean that at the time that the contract was made, any party acting reasonable and prudently
should have been able to realize that a breach of the contract would cause the type of harm that
actually did occur. The Harm in question was plaintiffs Constitutional right to privacy of any/all
information which was violated by not only the Statutory violation, but also by the breach of the
To prevail on a claim for breach of contract a party must establish (1) existence of a valid
contract (2) performance or excuse for nonperformance (3) breach, and (4) resulting damages.
The actual damage requirement for a breach of contract claim centers around the loss of fa ith
dealing with this network. The personal information that has been illegally obtained has created
not only frustration, emotional distress of not knowing when this will happen again. Time and
efforts of preparing and un artfully done petition to the Court, which is to be liberally construed
in favor of the Pro se plaintiff. The mental anguish of simply experiencing such a breach of trust
in relations to Facebook violating plaintiffs' privacy rights, after explicitly stating within the
agreement, that they would not. Plaintiff does not acquire the technological skill to monitor,
thereby preventing this from happening again. Which creates anxiety.
Plaintiff, being a privacy victim is entitled to recover without reference to proof of
damages, actual or otherwise. It is logical to become entitled to recover without reference to
damages because analogous common law would not require plaintiffto show particular items of
injury in order to receive a dollar recovery. Traditionally, the common law has provided such
victims with a claim for "general" damages: a monetary award calculated without reference to
specific harm. Plaintiff maintains no abandonment of his right to have private information
protected by the laws of the United States under the Constitution, or without the fear of being
intentionally infringed upon, and knowingly disclosed to others for a profit. These Statutes
undeniably protect this venerable right of privacy. Concomitantly, they further the First
Amendment rights of the plaintiffs to private web information. Here lies the principle that each
person should decide for themselves the ideas and beliefs, desires, and interest deserving of
personal expression, consideration, and adherence. Thereby protecting the privacy of individual
Plaintiff asserts that he has demonstrated an injury-in-fact by effectively showing that
he was a subscriber during the relevant time period sufficient to establish that the defendant
conduct did impart a concrete injury. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C 2520 this Court is authorized to
order damages for plaintiff to recover. The injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue
of "Statutes creating legal right, the invasion of which creates the standing."
California's three year statute of limitations for statutory violations applies to this claim.
Facebook acted with negligence by providing a privacy agreement they breached, thereby
violating plaintiff, causing statutory damages. The relief sought is appropriate due to the
Constitutionally based claim, which relies on factual predicates as the statutory violations.
Facebook intentionally violated the privacy rights of plaintiff, without the consent of
plaintiff, thereby causing the harm. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing the
plaintiffs harm entitling plaintiff to statutory damages.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing parties to
obtain discovery regarding "any non privileged matter that is relevant to any parties claim or
defense." Rule 26 (b) (1). Also for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Whatever reasonable information that
would help prove to be admissible evidence, in which would not be a requirement that the
information sought directly relate to a particular issue in this case.
Plaintiff seeks the interrogatory injunction as it relates to any matter that may be inquired under
Rule 26 (b). This will allow Facebook the opportunity to object and/or answer fully under oath.
The burden of proving the nonconsensual privacy violation as well as the statutory violations,
and the breach of the privacy agreement, is not the burden of the defendant to defend.
tn light of the above information Facebook has unlawfully infringed on the civil rights of plaintiff
for the purpose of direct commercial advantage.
If this Court finds that Facebook's actions were willful and done for purposes of direct or
indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, this Court in its discretion may increase
the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount not more than $100,000 for
each violation discovered. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants are repeat offenders, as
another suit for numerous statutory and State violations are pending against them in this
district, and this too warrants significant enhanced statutory damages. Emphasizing the need
for deterrence as to Facebook and others, Plaintiff request that it be awarded $100,000 in
enhanced statutory damages.
This action is hereby commenced and petitioner certify that this is a true correct and
complete document. That I have read this complaint and issue the same with full intent and
understanding of its contents. That this is done under the penalty of perjury in compliance to
the declaration and the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1746
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?