La Northern District Court di California rigetta la domanda di responsabilità verso Facebook (Fb) per violazione dell’account di un suo utente
Si tratta di US NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 31 dic. 2020 , caso mn. 20-cv-05177-JCS, Damner c. Facebook.
Il ricorrente addebitava a Fb di aver permesso l’ingresso abusivo nel suo account da parte di terzi (“allegations that his Facebook account was hacked”), che si erano poi impadroniti del medesimo, commettendo vari illeciti.
Varie erano state le causae petendi azionate : <<(1) violation of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a); (2) violation of the SCA, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a); (3) intrusion upon seclusion; (4) negligence; and (5) breach of written contract>>, p. 1-2
Ma nessuna ha convinto la corte, che le ha rigettate tutte.
Qui menziono solo la violazione contrattuale dei terms of service <<Statement of Rights and Responsibilities>>.
Pare fossero queste quelle pertinenti:
<< – We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it.” Id. § 3.
– We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook.”
– WE TRY TO KEEP FACEBOOK UP, BUG-FREE, AND SAFE, BUT YOU USE IT AT
YOUR OWN RISK. WE ARE PROVIDING FACEBOOK AS IS WITHOUT ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT
FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS BE SAFE, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT
FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS FUNCTION WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS, DELAYS OR
IMPERFECTIONS. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS,
CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE
US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY
CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH
THIRD PARTIES. . . .>>
Con questo tenore letterale, se valide, era ben difficile un esito diverso.
La corte respinge poi tutte le altre domande, pure quella di negligence generale, p. 11: l’attore doveva provare un duty of care nei suoi confronti, ma non c’è riuscito.
(notizia e link dal blog di Eric Goldman)