Meta wrongly suspends a Canadian Consumer&#39;s account. What are Canadians&#39; causes of action? Fact Pattern for Consumer who lives in Canada, and is Canadian citizen. I forgo naming territories and provinces, because this fact pattern has happened to Canadians across provinces. But Consumer is not American citizen, and is not connected to California. Premise that Consumer has done nothing wrong, Consumer has not paid any money to Meta, and Consumer has a contract with Meta.⓵ Meta suspended Consumer's Facebook or Instagram account for no reason at all, or for a wrong reason. Consumer emailed Meta Inc. multiple times, and sent multiple letters by registered mail. Consumer can prove registered letter's delivery to, and receipt by, Meta Inc. But Meta never responded to Consumer. Questions What jurisdiction or court must Consumer file her Claim against Meta Inc.? Can Consumer sue in her Canadian province or territory? What are Consumer's causes of action? I am iffy about Andrew Oh-Willeke's answer, as he doesn't cite the following paragraph from Instagram's Help Center revised 26 July 2022. How We Will Handle Disputes. If you are a consumer, the laws of the country in which you reside will apply to any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us that arises out of or relates to these Terms (&quot;claim&quot;), and you may resolve your claim in any competent court in that country that has jurisdiction over the claim. In all other cases, you agree that the claim must be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, that you submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim, and that the laws of the State of California will govern these Terms and any claim, without regard to conflict of law provisions. Without prejudice to the foregoing, you agree that, in its sole discretion, Meta Platforms Inc. may also bring any claim we have against you related to efforts to abuse, interfere, or engage with our products in unauthorized ways in the country in which you reside that has jurisdiction over the claim. ⓵ Postulate that Consumer has a contract with Meta Inc. Clifton Gilley has J.D. from Seattle University School of Law, cum laude. On Quora, Gilley wrote Consideration is merely &quot;something of value&quot;; it need not be money, though many think that is so. Facebook is offering you usage of their service, which they consider &quot;something of value&quot; in exchange for your agreement to the terms of service. The user agrees to grant Facebook license to use their content in certain ways, and that license is also &quot;something of value.&quot; That is technically sufficient to create a binding contract. Facebook collects and uses a massive amount of user-generated data on a daily basis to sell advertising and for other purposes; there is certainly valuable consideration being given by the user here. Jennifer Ellis has JD from Widener University School of Law in Delaware. On Quora, Ellis wrote There is mutual consideration. Facebook allows people to use its site. That is the thing of value that the user is getting. Facebook benefits from people using its site. That is the value Facebook is getting.
Most user complaints against Meta are subject to binding arbitration under the applicable terms of service (which is the principal contract between a user and Meta) and cannot be litigated in the court system. The example of a dispute in the question would not generally fall within the exceptions to the arbitration clause. It states, in part: The Instagram Service is one of the Meta Products, provided to you by Meta Platforms, Inc. These Terms of Use therefore constitute an agreement between you and Meta Platforms, Inc. ARBITRATION NOTICE: YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND US WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION. WE EXPLAIN SOME EXCEPTIONS AND HOW YOU CAN OPT OUT OF ARBITRATION BELOW. . . . How We Will Handle Disputes. Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram (&quot;claim(s)&quot;) must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. Class actions and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users. If there is a final judicial determination that any particular claim (or a request for particular relief) cannot be arbitrated in accordance with this provision's limitations, then only that claim (or only that request for relief) may be brought in court. All other claims (or requests for relief) remain subject to this provision. Instead of using arbitration, you or we can bring claims in your local &quot;small claims&quot; court, if the rules of that court will allow it. If you don't bring your claims in small claims court (or if you or we appeal a small claims court judgment to a court of general jurisdiction), then the claims must be resolved by binding, individual arbitration. The American Arbitration Association will administer all arbitrations under its Consumer Arbitration Rules. You and we expressly waive a trial by jury. The following claims don't have to be arbitrated and may be brought in court: disputes related to intellectual property (like copyrights and trademarks), violations of our Platform Policy, or efforts to interfere with the Service or engage with the Service in unauthorized ways (for example, automated ways). In addition, issues relating to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration provision are for a court to decide. This arbitration provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. You can opt out of this provision within 30 days of the date that you agreed to these Terms. To opt out, you must send your name, residence address, username, email address or phone number you use for your Instagram account, and a clear statement that you want to opt out of this arbitration agreement, and you must send them here: Meta Platforms, Inc. ATTN: Instagram Arbitration Opt-out, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025. Before you commence arbitration of a claim, you must provide us with a written Notice of Dispute that includes your name, residence address, username, email address or phone number you use for your Instagram account, a detailed description of the dispute, and the relief you seek. Any Notice of Dispute you send to us should be mailed to Meta Platforms, Inc., ATTN: Instagram Arbitration Filing, 1601 Willow Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025. Before we commence arbitration, we will send you a Notice of Dispute to the email address you use with your Instagram account, or other appropriate means. If we are unable to resolve a dispute within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Dispute is received, you or we may commence arbitration. We will pay all arbitration filing fees, administration and hearing costs, and arbitrator fees for any arbitration we bring or if your claims seek less than $75,000 and you timely provided us with a Notice of Dispute. For all other claims, the costs and fees of arbitration shall be allocated in accordance with the arbitration provider's rules, including rules regarding frivolous or improper claims. For any claim that is not arbitrated or resolved in small claims court, you agree that it will be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. You also agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim. The laws of the State of California, to the extent not preempted by or inconsistent with federal law, will govern these Terms and any claim, without regard to conflict of law provisions. While I haven't checked every single Meta service, I would strongly suspect that the Terms of Service for all of their online offerings have very similar provisions to this one.
False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative effects on other parties. Classic examples include defamation, perjury, and fraud. A lie about an endorsement could easily fall on either side of that line. If you are making the video in a context in which reasonable viewers would be led to believe that you truly were endorsed by that company, I could easily imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to liability: If you're releasing the video as part of a commercial endeavor, you're looking at possible claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and trademark violations (false designation, dilution, etc.). If your video is harmful to the company's reputation, you're facing a potential claim for product disparagement or trade libel. These are the corporate equivalents of the libel actions most people are more familiar with, and they generally require proving the same kinds of facts. A right of publicity/misappropriation of identity action is possible but very unlikely. Most states are very stingy about allowing businesses to bring these claims, so this one would probably be very jurisdiction-specific. Proving the case generally requires the company to show (1) that you made a commercial use of their identity, (2) that they did not authorize it, and (3) that the use caused economic harm. Beyond those, there's a whole host of business torts that I could try to squeeze this into but that are probably less likely given the hypothetical you've presented. I'd also note that your assumption about proving damages is not well-founded. Especially among the largest companies, businesses are very protective of their brands, and they invest absurd amounts of money to protect them. Pick any company with a high enough profile that someone would want to fake their endorsement, and I'd be willing to bet that their legal department could pretty quickly prepare a detailed estimate of the related damage to their brand. If a case went to trial, you'd normally expect to see an economist present an expert report calculating damages, which would begin (but not end) with any unjust enrichment you experienced because people thought you had the company's endorsement.
Both Bob and Charles are liable for infringement in the US. The fact that Charles had no idea that Bob was an infringer is not a defense, but it mitigates the statutory damages consequences for him. Either party can negotiate with Alice after the fact for a license, and Alice can grant either party but not the other permission to copy. The terms of the license that Alice gives Bob could either allow CCo reposting, or some more restrictive redistribution right. If the license requires a notice prohibiting further redistribution and Bob omits that notification, Bob will have breached the terms of the license in omitting the notification, so we're back to square 1. If Alice fails to specify a no-redistribution notification condition on Bob's reposting, Alice may have granted an implied license to the world, a matter which has to be determined by the courts.
Probably not. Overview You haven't specified a jurisdiction. I will talk about Australia because that's what I'm familiar with. In Australia the most relevant area of law would be tort, specifically negligence. The university would be liable to pay damages if a court found that it owed a duty of care to your friend, that it breached that duty, and that your friend suffered injury ('injury' including loss of property as well as mental suffering) as a result of that breach. Also potentially relevant would be contract law, if your friend and the university had entered into some kind of agreement relating to his security, or equity, if the university had somehow acted to lead your friend to rely, to his detriment, on the university protecting him (promissory estoppel: Walton Stores v Maher). However, I think this is unlikely unless, for some reason, the university had put up signs saying 'Please come onto our land and we will be responsible for your security'. Negligence You have stated that 'it is their responsibility to make sure all students are safe on campus.' It is not clear whether you mean to state that as a fact or whether you are suggesting it as a possible hypothetical basis of liability. I am not aware of a case that establishes the proposition that universities do have such a duty. The judgments in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 discuss the liability of the occupier of land (such as the university in your example) for injuries inflicted by criminals upon people present on land (such as your friend in your example). In that case, the defendant ran a shopping centre. The plaintiff worked at a shop in the shopping centre. At the end of the plaintiff's shift at 10.30pm, it was dark outside because the shopping centre switched the lights in the car park off at 10pm. The plaintiff was mugged in the shopping centre car park on his way out to his car. The key question there was whether the defendant shopping centre was under a duty to keep the lights on for workers leaving work (along with the question of how the failure to illuminate the area led to the attack i.e. whether the plaintiff still have been mugged if the lights were on). Therefore the question that we are presently interested in, about an occupier's responsibility to protect visitors, is only dealt with as a side issue in that case. But the principle is pretty well-established that, generally, you are not responsible to protect another person from the criminal acts of a third person. The common law has a strong presumption against imposing liability for 'omissions' as distinct from acts, which is another way of saying that the courts don't want people being liable to run out into the street and help people. See paragraphs 27 and 28 and thereabouts in Modbury Triangle. Particular relationships may exist which create such a duty. One is in relation to school children; the school is responsible for taking such care of the child as a parent would. The relevant features of this the school-child relationship include the child's vulnerability as a child and the way the school controls their movements and enviroment during the school day. I presume that your friend is not a child and the university does not control his or her movements. Therefore a court is likely to be looking at the general principle that the university is not responsible for protecting people from the criminal acts of strangers, and then looking (and probably not finding) any special feature of the relationship between your friend and the university that creates an aspect of vulnerability, reliance or control that makes it reasonable to impose a duty of care. Some people think that there is a general principle that if something bad happens to them, some identifiable person with cash must be responsible for paying compensation, whether that is an insurer, the government or a nearby corporation. The common law has not picked up that principle. The common law would slate the responsibility home primarily to the mugger. Sue them. What does the university have to do with it? Conceivably the university might also be liable along with the mugger, but the fact that an injury occurred and nobody else can in practice be held responsible does not in itself make the university liable. As mentioned by Pat W., there may be some other feature that creates a duty, such as if the university had made some change to the environment that allowed made the attack to occur when it wouldn't otherwise have e.g. moving your friend's dormitory so that the only entrance was through a dark alley, or if the attack occurred inside a university building where the university controlled entry (even then not sure that would get your friend over the line).
united-states In US law this is covered by 17 USC 512 (c) which was added to the US copyright law by the Digital Millineum Copyright Act (DMCA) Under that law, the service provide is not liable if The service provider does not actually know that content posted is infringing; and The provider does not have good reason to belive that content is infringing; and The provider promptly removes or makes inaccessible infringing content once the provider knows or has reason to believe that content is infringing; and The provider complies with the DMCA take down procedure; and The provider has and publishes the contact info of a designated agent to receive complaints and takedown notices. (The above is a paraphrase of the actual text of the law, rewritten for clarity.) The above is all true no matter how short or long the videos or music selections may be. The length is not relevant, except as it may affect a claim fgor fair use, where length is only one of the factors to be considered. The above would also apply if the video, as opposed to the music, was a copyright infringement. Note that the individual poster can still be liable for copyright infringement, and the service provider may be required to respond to a subpoena for information identifying posters. Note also that a service provider must warn posters not to post content protected by copyright to which the poster has no rights, and must have some procedure in place to limit or cancel the access of posters who persistently post infringing content.
DMCA applies as long as the the website is being hosted inside the U.S. The location of the copyright holder is irrelevant. For step-by-step help drafting a valid DMCA notice, see Step 2 of https://nppa.org/page/5617. If the site fails to comply with a valid notice, they lose the benefit of DMCA's safe harbor provisions and become themselves liable for continuing to host the infringing work, and you can sue them. (Prior filing suit, though, I imagine a letter from a lawyer that says, "Hey, my client sent you a valid DMCA notice a while ago; kindly comply at once, or we will actually sue you," should be sufficient.) The requirement to submit a photo appears to be totally unnecessary. A valid DMCA notice includes a signature (electronically including your name in an email is sufficient) and an assertion, under penalty of perjury, that the writer is authorized to control the copyright work and that the work is being used illegally. Beyond a signature and contact information, no further identity verification is necessary. The DMCA handles this by opening the submitter to perjury charges if the takedown was submitted illegally. Of course, any site might choose to ignore your DMCA takedown, at their own peril. They might bet that you won't actually hire a lawyer and follow through on your legal right to file suit, or they might not understand that identity verification is not a legal requirement listed in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). Your options are either: follow the law as written and file a valid takedown notice, and then hire a lawyer when they don't don't comply with the rules written in 17 U.S.C. § 512 follow their additional rules to get them to comply, which may be more difficult but might not require hiring a lawyer
For a contract (including ToS) to be valid, one of the things it must have is "legality of objects". That is, if the contract purports to require anything that is unlawful in the jurisdiction then (barring a severance clause) it is not a contract. In common law countries, the starting point is that people are free to contract for and about anything they like - a contract is simply a mechanism for exchanging value between the parties on whatever terms they wish. However, judges and legislatures have decided that there are some things you cannot trade and some terms that are unconscionable or against the public interest and these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction*. For example, a contract is not legal in any jurisdiction if its terms seek to exclude the intervention of the courts - this is against public policy. So for example, a binding arbitration clause requiring the parties to accept a private arbitrator's decision as final excludes the courts, yes? Well, in Australia, yes, such clauses if used in a contract between parties with different bargaining power (like a Telco and its customers) are invalid because they prevent the weaker party pursuing a class action. However, they are perfectly legal in the United States because the SCOTUS has determined that the customer can persue litigation after arbitration is finished so this doesn't impede the courts. These are essentially the same laws interpreted by the courts so that they have totally opposite effects. So this might lead you to think that you'll put one in - it'll be OK in the US and Australians will represent such a tiny share of your market that you don't care if I can't enforce my ToS there. Except, if your website is visible by Australians, you have just exposed yourself to a government fine of up to AUD 5,000,000 (say USD 3,000,000) per day for breach of Australian Consumer Law. As a general guide (which is very stereotypical), US jurisdictions are the most permissive in the rights they will allow their citizens to give up: the US attitude is that everyone is free to make the best deal they can. European jurisdictions are the least permissive in this regard: most European countries follow a more social welfare state model and the citizen needs protecting from themselves. Commonwealth countries tend to be more in the middle.
This kind of piracy is unfortunately common. When your copyright has been violated, your available response is to sue the infringer. Yes, this costs money, and yes, many infringers get away with it. In the Free Software/Open Source community, a couple of actors including the FSF, gpl-violations.org/Harald Welte, and the Software Freedom Conservancy have sued GPL infringers. But they can only do that for copyrights that they hold themselves. For example, the FSF holds copyright for the GNU userland, whereas Welte and Conservancy hold copyright for parts of the Linux kernel. They do not hold copyright for your software so they cannot enforce the AGPL license on your behalf. What can be done fairly easily is to file a takedown request with platforms that host the infringing content. Under various safe harbor laws including the US DMCA, a platform is not responsible if they accidentally host infringing content uploaded by users. However, the platform has to take the content down if they're notified that the content is infringing. For example, you could file a DMCA takedown request with GitHub to take down their repository, in case they are using GitHub. The drawback is that a takedown notice can be contested by the alleged infringer, in which case the content is reinstated and you would have to sue. The platform is not allowed to make its own determination about whether you or the infringer is right.