Considering the person is of some renown, She could have hired an attorney and had a nice amount of money from Facebook.
I'm thinking of $1 million damages, with $100 million putative for not having an access to challenge and dispute these kinds of identity theft and character assassination.
So my question... Why wasn't "Lawyer Up" the first thing she thought of?
> Why wasn't "Lawyer Up" the first thing she thought of?
It's not clear that a lawyer would matter. Facebook would plead immunity under CDA 230 [1]. Facebook would claim that CDA 230 grants complete immunity to hosts for user-created content, and that the fake profile is user-created content.
The legal theory "you should have made your website better" has yet to gain a lot of legal traction. Maybe it should, but it hasn't yet.
[1] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
Yep, in particular I recall a case involving AOL in which a man claimed negligence on the part of AOL for not policing their forums, allowing for people to defame him. The court ruled that providing that type of policing would have turned AOL into a publisher, which is exactly what 230 protects against.
Facebook claims users used their real names. That's pretty specific. If they are flagrantly ignoring a violation of their own claims, their legal standing seem different than an entity merely transmitting data.
I'm thinking of $1 million damages, with $100 million putative for not having an access to challenge and dispute these kinds of identity theft and character assassination.
So my question... Why wasn't "Lawyer Up" the first thing she thought of?