N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : FAC EB OOK PRIVAC Y LITIGATION,
M IKE R OB ER TSON, a s re pre se ntative of the c l a ss, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. FAC EB OOK, INC ., a

De la ware c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15619 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-02389-JW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s W are , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 17, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, TALLM AN, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
MAY08 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pla intiffs a ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l with pre judic e of the ir sta

te la w c la im s for bre a c h

of c ontra c t a

nd fra ud, a s we l l a s the ir c la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C o m

pe tition La

w (UC L) and C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e d ie s Ac t (C LR A ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 1 Pla intiffs a lle ge tha

t the inform ation disc l ose d by Fa c e book c a n be use d to obta in pe rsona l inform ation a b out pla intiffs, a

nd tha t the y we re ha rm e d both by

the disse m i nation of the ir pe rsona l inform ation a nd by losing the

sa le s va l ue of tha

t inform at ion. In thea

bse nc e of a

ny a pplic a ble c ontra ve ning sta

te la w, the se
a lle gations a

re suffic ie nt to show the

e le m e nt of da

m a ge s for the ir bre a c h of
c ontra c t a nd fra ud c la im s . C

f. Gautie r v . Ge n. Te l. C

o. , 44 C a l. R

ptr. 404, 406 (C a l. C t. App. 1965) (holding tha t bre a c h of c ontra c t re quire s da m a ge to the pla i ntiff); Lazar v . Sup. C t. , 909 P.2d 981, 984 (C a l . 1996) (sta ting tha t fra ud
re quire s da

m a ge to thepla intiff). The re fore , the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismi ssing the s e sta te la w c l a im s . W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of pla i ntiffs’ UC L c la im be c a use pla i ntiffs fa ile d

to a lle ge that the y

“ lost m one y

or prope rty

a s a re sult of theunfa ir
c om pe tition.”C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17204; se ealso Folge lstrom v

. Lamps

1 In a publishe d opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this me m o randum , we a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of pla intiffs’ c la im s unde r the Store d C om m unic ations Ac t, 18 U.S.C . § 2702. Robe rtson v . Fac e book , ___ F.3d ___ (9th C ir. 2014). 2Plus, Inc

. , 125 C a l. R tpr. 3d 260, 266–67 (C a l . C t. App. 2011). W e a lso a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of pla intiffs’ c la im unde r the C L R

A be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle g e tha

t the y obta ine d a

nything from

Fa c e book “by

purc ha se ,” or by

a

“ c o nsum e r transa c tion.” Sc haue r v . Mandarin Gems of C al., Inc

. , 23 C a l. R

ptr. 233, 241 (C a l. C t. App. 2005); C a l. C iv. C ode §§ 1761(d), 1780(a ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

3