Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/31622475/Facebook-v-Power-Ventures-N-D-Cal-Facebook-SJ-Motion
Timestamp: 2017-02-27 02:57:21
Document Index: 482502129

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase5:08-cv-05780-JW Document56Filed12/23/09 Page1 of 15
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JF (RS) NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 502(C) Date: Time: Judge: Courtroom: February 26, 2010 9:00 a.m. Hon. Jeremy D. Fogel 3
FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDMENT OF LIABILITY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-05780 JF
Case5:08-cv-05780-JW Document56
Filed12/23/09 Page2 of 15
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 26, 2010 at 9:00 am or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Court, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) will move the court for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment on Facebook’s second cause of action for violation of California Penal Code Section 502(c) against Defendants Power Ventures, Inc. and Steven Vachani (collectively, “Power”). These motions are based on the Notice of Motion and Motion, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings on file in this action, oral argument of counsel, and any other matter that may be submitted at the hearing
Filed12/23/09 Page3 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................1 A. Access To and Use of Facebook Is Limited..........................................................1 B. Facebook allows interactions with other websites.................................................2 C. Power’s Illegal Activities .....................................................................................3 1. Power Knowingly Accesses Facebook’s Computer Servers Without Authorization ...........................................................................................3 2. Power Circumvents Facebook’s Technological Blocking Measures ..........3 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................4 A. Judgment On The Pleadings Standard ..................................................................4 B. Power Has Violated California Penal Code 502(c)(1)-(4) and 502(c)(7) ...............5 1. There Are No Facts In Dispute Regarding The Elements Of A 502(c) Violation .......................................................................................5 2. Facebook’s Terms Of Use Are Enforceable As A Matter Of Law .............8 C. Facebook Is Entitled To Injunctive Relief To Stop Power’s Impermissible Access To Its Systems..........................................................................................9 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................9
Filed12/23/09 Page4 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page FEDERAL CASES Am. Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998).......................................................................................7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) ........................................................4 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) ........................................................5 Chi-Mil Corp. v. W.T. Grant Co., 70 F.R.D. 352 (E.D. Wis. 1976) ............................................................................................4 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................6 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................7 FEC v. Adams, 558 F. Supp. 2d 982 (C.D. Cal. 2008)....................................................................................4 Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) ...............................................................................................4 Local Motion, Inc. v. Niescher, 105 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................................8 Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ................................................................................7, 9 Southwest Airlines v. Farechase, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D. Tex. 2004)...................................................................................8 Shurgard Storage Ctrs., Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000) .............................................................................8 ViChip Corp. v. Lee, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2006)..................................................................................4 STATE CASES Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Services, Inc., No. C 04-4825 JW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2005)...........................................................9 Chem v. New York Life Ins. Co., No. C 97-1780 SBA, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20054 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 1997) .......................................................8 Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, et al., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2007)..................................................................................8
Filed12/23/09 Page5 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Facebook, Inc. v. Wallace, No. C 09-798 JF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107771 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) .....................................................8 Facebook, Inc. v. Guerbuez, No. C08-03889 JF, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108921, *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008) ..............................................8 Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Media Breakaway, LLC, No. CV08-937 CAS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63454 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2009 )........................................................4 FEDERAL STATUTES California Penal Code § 502........................................................................................ 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act .......................................................................................... 6, 7, 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) .........................................................................................1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)................................................................................................................4, 5
Filed12/23/09 Page6 of 15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) moves this court for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to its second cause of action or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment with respect to that claim. Defendants Power Ventures, Inc. and Steven Vachani (herein collectively referred to as “Power”) have admitted certain facts set forth in Facebook’s complaint. Based upon those admissions, no dispute of material fact exists regarding Facebook’s claim under California Penal Code § 502. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings on Facebook’s California Penal Code § 502 claim is warranted. The following facts are not in dispute. Power accessed the Facebook website in violation of Facebook’s Terms of Use. When Facebook tried to stop Power, Power worked around Facebook’s technical barriers. When Facebook asked Power to say it will not access the website without authorization, Power would not give assurances. Power’s only defense is a legal one: it argues that Facebook’s Terms of Use are “legally unenforceable.” This Court has repeatedly found this argument meritless and should do so again here. Given the indisputable liability, a permanent injunction should be entered stopping Power from soliciting or storing Facebook login information, accessing or attempting to access Facebook’s website and computer systems or engaging in any other unlawful activity. II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS The following factual allegations from Facebook’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) are admitted by Power in its Amended Answer (Dkt. No. 54) (“Amended Answer”). A. Access To and Use of Facebook Is Limited
“Facebook owns and operates the widely popular social networking website located at http://www.facebook.com.” Amended Answer ¶ 2. “Facebook users register with a unique user name and password.” Id. ¶ 21. “Before Facebook activates a username and permits a user access to certain features of the Facebook website, the user must agree to Facebook’s Terms of Use, which set forth the acceptable terms of use of its computer network and prohibit users from conducting certain activities.” Id. ¶ 29; see also Dkt. No. 38, May 11, 2009 Order Denying
Filed12/23/09 Page7 of 15
Motion to Dismiss at p 2 (“Every Facebook user must register before using the website, and registration requires the user to assent to Facebook’s Terms of Use, which essentially is a user agreement that sets forth the acceptable terms of use”). Specifically, “Facebook’s Terms of Use require Facebook users to abide by certain rules of user conduct.” Id. ¶ 30 “In exchange for the free service, the users agree they will refrain from”: a. soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or soliciting passwords or personally identifying information for commercial or unlawful purposes; b. using or attempting to use another’s account, service or system without authorization from Facebook, or creating a false identity on Facebook; c. using automated scripts to collect information from or otherwise interact with the Facebook website; d. impersonating any person or entity, or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself; e. uploading, posting, transmitting sharing or otherwise making available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes or any other form of solicitation; f. harvesting or collecting email addresses or other contact information of other users from Facebook by electronic or other means for purposes of sending unsolicited emails or other unsolicited communications; g. registering for more than one User account or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself; and h. using Facebook’s website for commercial use without the express permission of Facebook. Id. ¶ 30. B. Facebook allows interactions with other websites
The parties agree that Facebook permits integration with third-party websites through the Facebook Connect service. Id. ¶ 28; Amended Answer ¶ 28 (“Defendants admit that Facebook permits limited integration with third party websites through Facebook Connect”). “Facebook Connect “allows users to ‘connect’ their Facebook identity, friends and privacy to any site using a trusted authentication interface. This interface ensures that Facebook users only provide their
Filed12/23/09 Page8 of 15
login information to Facebook, and that this sensitive information is stored only on Facebook’s secure servers – not the servers of the third party websites. By offering Facebook Connect, Facebook enables users to integrate with other sites without compromising Facebook’s commitment to safeguard its users’ privacy and security.” FAC ¶ 28. “Facebook does not permit third party access to Facebook user profile data unless such third parties use Facebook Connect.” Id. Power has not agreed to the Facebook Connect terms of use. C. Power’s Illegal Activities 1. Power Knowingly Accesses Facebook’s Computer Servers Without Authorization.
The material facts relating to Power’s improper accessing of Facebook’s servers are not in dispute. Power admits that it “permits users to enter their account information to access the Facebook site through Power.com.” Amended Answer ¶ 18; see also ¶¶ 45, 50 (same). To this end, Power concedes that it has “developed computer software and other automated devices and programs to access and obtain information from the Facebook website for aggregating services.” Id. ¶ 74. This means of “accessing” and “obtaining information” is commonly known as “scraping,” a well-recognized form of cyber-attack on the Internet involving the trespass to a computer server. Following the trespass, Power has admitted that it copied and stored all the Facebook data files necessary to display the Facebook website through the Power browser. Id. ¶ 75 (“Defendants admit that Power creates temporary cached copies of the Facebook website in order to display it through the Power browser.”). Blankly, Power admits that it “provided users with tools necessary to access Facebook through Power.com.” Id. ¶ 64. Power concedes that “[a]t no time have Defendants received permission from Facebook to represent that solicitation of Facebook username and passwords was authorized or endorsed by Facebook.” Id. ¶ 53. 2. Power Circumvents Facebook’s Technological Blocking Measures.
On December 1, 2008, Facebook notified Vachani that “Power.com’s access of Facebook’s website and servers was unauthorized and violated Facebook’s rights, including Facebook’s trademark, copyrights, and business expectations with its users.” FAC ¶ 57;
Filed12/23/09 Page9 of 15
Amended Answer ¶ 57. At first, Power expressed its agreement to abide by Facebook’s Terms and “integrate Power.com with Facebook Connect.” Amended Answer ¶ 58. But on December 26, Mr. Vachani sent an e-mail to Facebook stating Power’s “business decision” to continue its website’s unauthorized use of Facebook user login credentials and unauthorized access to Facebook’s computers until it was able to fully implement Facebook’s Connect service. FAC ¶ 63; Amended Answer ¶ 63; see also Declaration of Julio C. Avalos In Support of Facebook’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Avalos Decl.”) Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of Mr. Vachani’s e-mail as well as other correspondence between Mr. Vachani and Facebook’s counsel. It is undisputed that “Facebook implemented technical measures to block users from accessing Facebook through Power.com.” Amended Answer ¶ 63. But despite these blocking efforts, Power admits that it subsequently “provided [its] users with tools necessary to access Facebook through Power.com.” Id. ¶ 64. III. ARGUMENT A. Judgment On The Pleadings Standard
“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FEC v. Adams, 558 F. Supp. 2d 982, 987 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990)). “Judgment on the pleadings may be granted as to fewer than all of the claims, or as to part of a claim.” Id., citing, Chi-Mil Corp. v. W.T. Grant Co., 70 F.R.D. 352, 358 (E.D. Wis. 1976). Similarly, summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case.” ViChip Corp. v. Lee, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1092-93 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). “The moving party has the initial burden of identifying relevant portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a fact or facts necessary for one or more essential elements of each cause of action upon which the moving party seeks judgment.” Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Media Breakaway, LLC, No. CV08-937 CAS,
Filed12/23/09 Page10 of 15
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63454, *13 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2009 ) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). “If the moving party has sustained its burden, the nonmoving party must then identify specific facts, drawn from materials on file, that demonstrate that there is a dispute as to material facts on the elements that the moving party has contested.” Id., citing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Power has admitted the truth of the factual allegations giving rise to Facebook’s claims. There are no further material facts in dispute. B. Power Has Violated California Penal Code 502(c)(1)-(4) and 502(c)(7) 1. There Are No Facts In Dispute Regarding The Elements Of A 502(c) Violation
Facebook is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. There are no disputed material facts relating to the fact that (i) Defendants are registered Facebook users, (ii) that all Facebook users are required to agree to Facebook’s Terms of Use, (iii) that the recitation of Facebook’s Terms of Use in Paragraph 30 of the FAC is accurate, and (iv) that those terms expressly prohibit various of Defendants’ acts. California Penal Code Section 502(e)(1) provides a civil cause of action for the owner or lessee of the computer or computer network who suffers damage or loss as a result of a violation of Section 502(c). Compensatory damages, equitable relief, punitive damages and attorney fees’ are all recoverable under the statute. See Penal Code § 502(e)(1). A “public offense” in violation of California Penal Code 502(c) is established when a person: (1) Knowingly access and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data. (2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system or computer network. (3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.
Filed12/23/09 Page11 of 15
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. … (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network. Power has admitted facts sufficient to establish a violation of Section 502. Power has admitted to knowingly accessing and without permission taking, copying, and/or making use of Facebook login information data. Defendants have admitted that “that they operate a website, www.power.com, which offers to integrate multiple social networking accounts into a single experience on Power.com.” Amended Answer ¶ 5. Power has admitted that it “permits users to enter their account information to access the Facebook site through Power.com.” Id. ¶ 18; see also ¶¶ 45, 50 (same). As Defendants succinctly concede: they have “developed computer software and other automated devices and programs to access and obtain information from the Facebook website for aggregating services.” ¶ 74. Indeed, Power’s knowing access was so brazen, they continued to “provide[] users with tools necessary to access Facebook through Power.com,” id. ¶ 64, even after “Facebook implemented technical measures to block users from accessing Facebook through Power.com.” Id. ¶ 63. Following the trespass, Power has admitted that it copied, took and stored all the Facebook data files necessary to display the Facebook website through the Power browser. Id. ¶ 75 (“Defendants admit that Power creates temporary cached copies of the Facebook website in order to display it through the Power browser.”). Power’s actions were indisputably without permission because they exceeded the terms of use. In determining whether computer access was without permission under the California Penal Code, the Court may look to the analogous Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, where courts have repeatedly held that “unauthorized access” or “access in excess of authorized access” is established when a user engages in computer use that violates the terms of a contract made between the user and the computer owner (such as a website’s terms of use). See, e.g., EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that “[a] lack of
Filed12/23/09 Page12 of 15
authorization could be established by an explicit statement on the website restricting access,” giving rise to a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation if a website user thereafter violated the terms of use); EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 581-582 (1st Cir. 2001) (finding that defendant’s use of a computerized “scraper” program to take information from plaintiff’s website likely exceeded authorized access where such use at least implicitly violated an agreement between the parties); Southwest Airlines v. Farechase, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 435, 43940 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (finding that Southwest sufficiently stated a CFAA claim where Southwest had directly informed the defendant that its scraping of southwest.com was unauthorized); Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding that plaintiff successfully established that defendant’s use of its website was unauthorized within the meaning of the CFAA simply by virtue of the fact that plaintiff objected to defendant’s use); Am. Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444, 450-451 (E.D. Va. 1998) (concluding that defendants’ use of AOL membership to harvest e-mail addresses of AOL users was unauthorized because such actions violated AOL’s terms of service). Defendants admit that they (like all registered users) were required to agree to Facebook’s Terms of Use. See Amended Answer ¶ 29. Defendants agree that these Terms “set forth the acceptable terms of use of its [Facebook’s] computer network and prohibit users from conducting certain activities.” Id. Defendants agree that Facebook’s terms prohibit, among other things, “using automated scripts to . . . interact with the Facebook website,” “falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself,” “uploading, posting, transmitting, sharing, or otherwise making available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes or any other form of solicitation,” “harvesting or collecting email addresses or other contact information of other users from Facebook by electronic or other means for purposes of sending unsolicited emails or other unsolicited communications,” and “using Facebook’s website for commercial use without the express permission of Facebook.” Amended Answer ¶ 30. Power’s actions, including its accessing and scraping of Facebook as well as its spam promotional campaign, appear to have violated each of these provisions.
Filed12/23/09 Page13 of 15
Facebook has suffered damage or loss. Facebook has been forced to commit corporate resources to deal with the repeated attacks by Power, including Power’s admitted circumvention of Facebook’s technological blocking measures. Defendants admit that on December 26, 2008, Facebook “implemented technical measures to block users from accessing Facebook through Power.com” Id. ¶ 63. Power circumvented these blocking measures, and admittedly continued to “provide[] [its] users with tools necessary to access Facebook through Power.com,” i.e., continued to scrape the Facebook site and to provide unauthorized access to Facebook in contravention of the Facebook Terms of Use. Id. ¶ 64. Power’s circumvention resulted in their “creating temporary cached copies of the Facebook website in order to display it through the Power browser” to third-parties. Amended Answer ¶¶ 64, 75. The time and resources invested by Facebook in tracking Power’s attacks, blocking Power’s attacks, and then fielding even more attacks after Power’s admitted circumvention are cognizable injuries demonstrating damage or loss under the computer trespass statutes. See Shurgard Storage Ctrs., Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1126 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (holding that damage under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act includes impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system or information). See also California Penal Code § 502(e)(1). 2. Facebook’s Terms Of Use Are Enforceable As A Matter Of Law.
Power’s sole defense is that Facebook’s terms of use are unenforceable. The enforceability of Facebook’s Terms of Use is a legal question. See Local Motion, Inc. v. Niescher, 105 F.3d 1278, 1280 (9th Cir. 1997) (cited in Chem v. New York Life Ins. Co., No. C 97-1780 SBA, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20054 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 1997) (“The enforceability of a contract presents a question of law”)). This Court has enforced Facebook’s Terms of Use. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, et al., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-91 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (enforcing provisions of the Terms of Use); Facebook, Inc. v. Wallace, No. C 09-798 JF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107771 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (same); see also Facebook, Inc. v. Guerbuez, No. C08-03889 JF, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108921, *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008) (entering permanent injunction prohibiting, inter alia, Defendant from “violating, or assisting or inducing others to violate, Facebook’s Terms of Use”). The Court has also specifically enforced clickOHS West:260792905.6
Filed12/23/09 Page14 of 15
through agreements forbidding scraping. See, e.g., Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Services, Inc., No. C 04-4825 JW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2005) (enforcing terms included in website’s terms of use where website was accessed by an automated bot scraping program and noting that “[w]hile new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract. It is standard contract doctrine that when a benefit is offered subject to stated conditions, and the offeree makes a decision to take the benefit with knowledge of the terms of the offer, the taking constitutes acceptance of the terms, which accordingly become binding on the offeree.”) (quoting Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir. 2004)). It cannot be disputed that Facebook’s Terms are legally enforceable on registered Facebook users. C. Facebook Is Entitled To Injunctive Relief To Stop Power’s Impermissible Access To Its Systems.
California Penal Code Section 502(e)(1) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he owner . . . of the computer, computer system, computer network, computer program, or data who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of any of the provisions of subdivision (c) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief” (emphasis added). Power has demonstrated that unless enjoined, it will continue to refuse to abide by Facebook’s Terms of Use. Power has previously gone so far as to circumvent technological blocking measures instituted by Facebook to keep Power from attacking its servers. Facebook respectfully requests that the Court enter a permanent injunction ordering Power and its agents and/or assigns not to further access Facebook’s site, service, and servers without first agreeing to the Facebook Terms of Use and/or terms of the Facebook Connect program and should be further ordered to abide by those Terms of Use. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Facebook respectfully requests that the Court grant Facebook’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, in the alternative, Summary Judgment on its second cause of action.
Filed12/23/09 Page15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document(s) filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on December 23, 2009. Dated: December 23, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jessica S. Pers JESSICA S. PERS
Case5:08-cv-05780-JW Document56-1
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) nchatterjee@orrick.com THOMAS J. GRAY (STATE BAR NO. 191411) tgray@orrick.com JULIO C. AVALOS (STATE BAR NO. 255350) javalos@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: +1-650-614-7400 Facsimile: +1-650-614-7401 JESSICA S. PERS (STATE BAR NO. 77740) jpers@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: +1-415-773-5700 Facsimile: +1-415-773-5759 Attorneys for Plaintiff and FACEBOOK, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JF (RS) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FACEBOOK INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 502(C) Date: Time: Judge: Courtroom: February 26, 2009 9:00 am Hon. Jeremy D. Fogel 3
OHS West:260800860.1
[PROP] ORDER GRANTING FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS , OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SJ. CASE NO. 5:08-CV-05780 JF
The Motion of Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) for Judgment On The Pleadings Pursuant To Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 against Defendants Power Ventures, Inc. and Steven Vachani (“Power”) came on for hearing on February 26, 2009, before the Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel; The Court, having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the arguments presented at the hearing and other matters relevant to the determination of these motions Hereby finds and Orders as follows: 1. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. In its Amended Answer, Power has admitted facts sufficient to establish a violation of California Penal Code 502(c). 3. Facebook has alleged, and Power has admitted that: a. b. Facebook owns and operates the widely popular social networking website located at http:www.facebook.com. Before Facebook activates a username and permits a user access to certain features of the Facebook website, the user must agree to Facebook’s Terms of Use, which set forth the acceptable terms of use of its computer network and prohibit users from conducting certain activities. Specifically, Facebook’s Terms of Use require Facebook users to abide by certain rules of user conduct. In exchange for the free Facebook service, users agree that they will refrain from, among other things, soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or soliciting passwords or personally identifying information for commercial or unlawful purposes; using or attempting to use another’s account, service or system without authorization from Facebook, or creating a false identity on Facebook, using automated scripts to collect information from or otherwise interact with the Facebook website, impersonating any person or entity, or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself, uploading, posting, transmitting sharing or otherwise making available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes or any other form of solicitation, harvesting or collecting email addresses or other contact information from other users from Facebook, registering for more than one User account or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself, and using -4[PROP] ORDER GRANTING FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS , OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SJ. CASE NO. 5:08-CV-05780 JF
Facebook’s website for commercial use without the express permission of Facebook. 4. 5. Power permits users to enter their account information to access the Facebook site through Power.com. Power has developed computer software and other automated devices and programs to access and obtain information from the Facebook website for aggregating services. Power has copied and stored all the Facebook data files necessary to display the Facebook website through the Power browser. Power has at no time received permission from Facebook to represent that solicitation of Facebook usernames and passwords was authorized or endorsed by Facebook. Power’s accessing and subsequent “scraping” of Facebook data from Facebook’s servers constitutes knowing and impermissible or unauthorized accessing of Facebook’s servers. Power’s accessing and copying of Facebook data constitutes a “use” of that data pursuant to California Penal Code 502(c). Facebook’s Terms of Use are enforceable as to registered users of the Facebook website. Use of Facebook’s website in contravention of the Facebook Terms of Use constitutes “impermissible” or unauthorized access and/or use of the Facebook site within the meaning of California Penal Code 502(c). Facebook is entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to California Penal Code Section 502(e)(1). Facebook has expended resources combating Power’s actions, as demonstrated by its implementation of technological blocking measures that Power has admitted to circumventing. ACCORDINGLY, Facebook’s Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 15. Defendants Power Ventures, Inc. and Steven Vachani, and all of their agents, successors, and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are hereby PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from: a. b. c. soliciting and/or storing Facebook login information; accessing or attempting to access Facebook’s website and computer systems; displaying Facebook’s trademark anywhere on their websites; -5[PROP] ORDER GRANTING FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS , OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SJ. CASE NO. 5:08-CV-05780 JF
engaging in any activity that disrupts, diminishes the quality of, interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of Facebook’s website; and engaging in any activity that violates Facebook’s Terms of Use.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honorable Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFacebook v. Power Ventures (N.D. Cal. - Facebook SJ Motion by Venkat Balasubramani0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionFacebook's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Power.com's violation of California Penal Code section 502(C).Facebook's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Power.com's violation of California Penal Code section 502(C).Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedFacebook v Power 05-11-09by Legal WriterFacebook Data Scraping Caseby Daniel Ballardcomm552seanparker-120415211531-phpapp01by pack-pThe Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al - Document No. 224by Justia.comLetter from Mark Zuckerbergby Deepak Gupta (DG)Mark zuckerbergby Aditi JainInsights for Facebook Pages: Product Guideby FacebookCompetitive Website Review for Indian IT Companies 2by sandeep.nahariaCase Study - Microsoft India GTSC - 10 Year Campaignby misterduttaHi Tech: Instagram, a beginning or threat? - Micron Associatesby micronhitechCommunication Diary 1 (1)by FarahAhmedSoutheastern Penn. Trans. Auth. v. Zuckerberg - Motion for Expedited Proceedings.pdfby Mark H. JaffeFB Fans Stampedeby Luis RamirezFacebook Connect by Amber156How to Use Pagemodoby BadetteCatallaSpying - Facebook is the Department of PreCrimeby dustinshayHow to Engage Fans on Facebook 04by mrpreacherGreen Crest Capital - Facebook (Executive Summary)by OutontheBubbleSocial Media Case Study: Pretzel Crispsby Eve DmochowskaMark Zuckerberg.docxby MehulHacking Facebook 1.02by barneyr666999Selfish Villagers Jeopardise Kids' Livesby evelyn_walcott3911New entries in the DJ Mag Top 100 - Followed by humans or robots?by Denis DoelandAggie Up! Volume 3 Issue 10by Aaron CouchBusiness Stastic Final Word Docby Arun ShettyDad's Sideby zakrzewskidanielleTheCharmingYou - Enchanting Girls on Facebook and MySpaceby leonardbaumgardtLongman Essay Activatorby JasonNguyenSimilar to Facebook v. Power Ventures (N.D. Cal. - Facebook SJ MotionSkip carouselFacebook v Power 05-11-09Facebook Data Scraping Casecomm552seanparker-120415211531-phpapp01The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al - Document No. 224Letter from Mark ZuckerbergMark zuckerbergInsights for Facebook PagesCompetitive Website Review for Indian IT Companies 2Case Study - Microsoft India GTSC - 10 Year CampaignHi TechCommunication Diary 1 (1)Southeastern Penn. Trans. Auth. v. Zuckerberg - Motion for Expedited Proceedings.pdfFB Fans StampedeFacebook Connect How to Use PagemodoSpying - Facebook is the Department of PreCrimeHow to Engage Fans on Facebook 04Green Crest Capital - Facebook (Executive Summary)Social Media Case StudyMark Zuckerberg.docxHacking Facebook 1.02Selfish Villagers Jeopardise Kids' LivesNew entries in the DJ Mag Top 100 - Followed by humans or robots?Aggie Up! Volume 3 Issue 10Business Stastic Final Word DocDad's SideTheCharmingYou - Enchanting Girls on Facebook and MySpaceLongman Essay ActivatorNokia CaseStudyIBPS RRB GK Questions asked in Scale 1 Officer Test.pdfFacebook v. Power Ventures (N.D. Cal. - Facebook SJ Motion