830 F. Supp. 2d 785 - Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2722 (§ 300002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[E]ven if the underlying actions taken by Plaintiffs are newsworthy, Plaintiffs assert that Facebook’s commercial use of those actions ... removes them from the scope of § 3344(d)’s newsworthy privilege. The Court agrees. Because Facebook’s publication of Plaintiffs’ ‘Likes’ is alleged to be for commercial advertising purposes and not part of “any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign,” the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the claim under the newsworthiness exception provided in § 3344(d).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a free, web-based social networking site with over 153 million members in the United States.... To join Facebook, a user must provide his or her name, age, gender, and a valid e-mail address, and agree to Facebook's terms of service.... Once registered, a member receives a [p]rofile page, may upload a profile photo[graph] representing him or herself, and may establish connections with other members by approving them as Facebook [f]riends.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bouknight“• The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ section 3344 claim with leave to amend; • The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds of CDA immunity; • The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on First Amendment grounds; and • The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds of incidental use.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.