Sign in / up

back to article Facebook offers $10 to each of its Sponsored Stories victims

A US judge is considering a revised settlement proposal from Facebook in the class action suit over Sponsored Stories. Facebook is trying to settle the case brought by folks ticked off that the social network publicised their "Likes" of certain companies as adverts without paying them for it or allowing them to opt out. …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Justice
    Meh

    Too little too late.

    $10 for them using your face for advertising revenue without your permission is not enough.

    Surely it should be worked out in the exact same way they charge... per impression?

    Those who found themselves plastered all over the place obviously getting the lions share.

    4 0
  2. The BigYin

    What case do they have?

    From the Facebook User Agreement, section 2, point 1:

    "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). "

    Surely that means FB can do what they like with your stuff (unless you've set it to private)?

    So why do these people think they are due money?

    I dislike FB as much as the next thinking person (which is why I am not on it) but if people agree to terms like the above, I really don't see on what grounds they can complain.

    2 3
    1. ratfox
      Reply Icon
      Holmes

      EULA are worth little more than the paper they are not written on

      Strangely, even if the EULA contained the terms "you agree to give us all your money", it would not mean Facebook can take all the money of their users.

      This is not South Park; there are laws.

      8 1
      1. The BigYin
        Reply Icon

        Re: EULA are worth little more than the paper they are not written on

        But we are talking about a license agreement, not theft or signing away statutory rights (I think).

        If "there are laws", care to cite? My question was genuine, I don't see why these people are complaining. They (should have) read the User Agreement and they (should have) understood what they were agreeing to.

        2 3
    2. Goldmember
      Reply Icon

      Re: What case do they have?

      It doesn't matter what you sign (or 'check'). Legal precedent dictates that if a contractual clause is illegal, it isn't worth the paper/ screen it's written on.

      2 0
      1. The BigYin
        Reply Icon

        Re: What case do they have?

        "Legal precedent dictates that if a contractual clause is illegal, it isn't worth the paper/ screen it's written on."

        I will ask again - what is illegal? What law is being broken? I simply do not get it. They have agreed to let FB do whatever it wants with what they choose to give FB. It's not like they have signed away all rights to whatever they produce to FB, just what they choose to give FB.

        2 0
        1. The BigYin
          Reply Icon

          Re: What case do they have?

          I'll answer myself. California Right of Publicity Law, but I am not sure FB broke that because it says:

          "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent"

          I may be being daft here, but isn't reading and agreeing to the User Agreement prior consent?

          2 0
          1. Psyx
            Reply Icon

            Re: What case do they have?

            "I may be being daft here, but isn't reading and agreeing to the User Agreement prior consent?"

            No. Consent is specific, rather than vague.

            3 0
            1. The BigYin
              Reply Icon

              Re: What case do they have?

              "No. Consent is specific, rather than vague."

              Thanks for that answer. I'm still of the opinion that these people should have seen some like this coming. They are the product, after all.

              0 0
        2. Psyx
          Reply Icon
          Facepalm

          Re: What case do they have?

          "I will ask again - what is illegal? What law is being broken? I simply do not get it"

          Well, I'd recommend asking a Californian lawyer, or even having a look at the court findings yourself, which will be on-line somewhere and will detail the plaintiff's legal complained, but I'm guessing privacy laws have been breeched.

          "They have agreed to let FB do whatever it wants."

          No they haven't. Contracts don't automatically over-ride basic rights and expectations, otherwise they would always be written to do so at the detriment of the party who didn't write it. Just imagine what would happen if every vendor could write into sales contracts that you sign away all consumer rights: It would make a mockery of every law passed to protect consumers.

          2 0
  3. TeeCee Gold badge
    Devil

    Dear Judge.

    This should be a simple one. All you have to do is find out what the industry average payment is for getting a no-name actor or model to appear in an advertising campaign and order FB to pay each person that amount.

    I'll bet it's a shitload more than ten bucks.....

    2 0
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon

      Re: Dear Judge.

      "All you have to do is find out what the industry average payment is for getting a no-name actor or model to appear in an advertising campaign and order FB to pay each person that amount."

      For just using a tiny head-shot, It wouldn't be very much more than $10 at all.

      0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maths fail

    "$10 each from the same $20m settlement pot. The case affects potentially 100 million users,"

    Um... 10 x 100,000,000 > 20,000,000

    ?

    1 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like