Class Action Lawsuit Says Facebook Violated The Law By Letting Kids Like Ads
from the because,-they-better-not-like-ads... dept
It appears that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook for the horrible, horrible act of letting kids like ads. As TechCrunch explains:On Facebook, you can "like" any status update or post in your stream, but you can also "like" ads. When you do so, it can appear as a status update to all your friends if that ad is linked to a Facebook page, thus turning the "like" button into a social endorsement...This seems like a clear "unintended consequences" situation. Politicians pass a law to "protect the children" from being exploited in advertisements, but it also has the potential to get in the way of really harmless activity, such as a kid clicking a "like" button on his Facebook profile.
The class action lawyers claim that in the case of teenagers, Facebook is "misappropriating the names and pictures of minors for profit." Facebook might say that it is in its terms of service, that's how the site works. But the lawsuit hinges on a loophole in California law which requires parental consent in order to obtain a minor's consent for using their name or likeness for an advertisement, And Facebook doesn't do that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, kids, like, protect the children
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
stupid law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stupid law
It all comes down to what kind of society we want -- if you are OK with the future being a world where facebook is indistinguishable from reality, then this stuff is OK. If you are more level headed and realize that we need to draw the line somewhere to protect children from runaway consumerism, then this lawsuit makes sense. For the former class of people, I urge you to actually sit back and realize how much advertising has sucked you in and how many of your views are paid for by big business interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stupid law
So then we also need to sue a load of churches or religions who 'brainwash' our kids, politicians who visit schools to influence 'future voters', the list would get very silly.
The answer is not legislation but better parenting, a TV is NOT a babysitter!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it harmless?
I agree with the intent of this law, regardless of how "harmless" this may seem now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it harmless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it harmless?
Shocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it harmless?
Until then you're just speculating that someone MAY be harmed in the future based on their actions today, a situation which occurs everyday, even for minors.
As to your example, if some employer doesn't want to hire me or I can't get elected to political office because i "liked" an advertisement for High Times magazine when I was 12 ... well who wants to work for those people anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it harmless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Terms of service" don't overturn *any* laws.
And societal standards are correctly asserted that exploiting kids for profit -- no matter how harmless it appears -- is also *out*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Terms of service" don't overturn *any* laws.
A contract that is illegal is not a contract, but it's easy to create a contract that works with the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Terms of service" don't overturn *any* laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Terms of service" don't overturn *any* laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@10 you might also
the people that make tools to feed them all like knives and forks and spoons
"THERE IS NO SPOON"
and i'm sure when you start suing parents on mass like hollywood lawsuits they will vote the madness to end if they got even one brain cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @10 you might also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @10 you might also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again we want to criminalize technology...
Why should facebook, or any company do a parent's job, and if not it gets taken to court? Is not as if there were no filters available. And even then, forget the filters, if I tell my kids they cannot use facebook at all for whatever reasons I have, then they better keep off facebook! If your kids will disobey you, then you have a problem with discipline, and it is still not facebook's or any other company problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
??
In other news, my 17 yo friend told me he likes Starcraft2 while we were at a mall. The mall must be sued for letting him/her say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, I'm all for anything that makes it more difficult for advertising to annoy us by existing.
On the other hand, I'm against the unnecessary limitation of the personal freedoms of minors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers..who needs them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Loophole ?
What LOOPHOLE ??? Do you guys even understand what a loophole in the law means ?
Its **NOT** a loophole, its a law.. Geezzz.. I guess it does not as hostile if you just say they broke the law of the state and people took action..
So can you explain what aspect of that law constitutes a loophole please?
Parental consent is required for almost anything if the child is a minor. Its not a 'loophole' to require parental consent for children.
Now, for example, a loophole would be that the state ALLOWS children advertising WITHOUT parental consent. That would be a loophole.
ie, a method of getting around the stated laws..
So again, how is this a loophole? How is it a method of getting around the laws.
'Did you know the pile is the natural enemy of the hole?'
So there is no loophole, and its in very bad taste and ethics to use minors for profit and gain, thay they do not benifit from. So its not just against the law, its morally corrupt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
|Stupid LAw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]