Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/3--20-cv-00363/Reveal_Chat_Holdco_LLC_et_al_v._Facebook_Inc./1/
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 05:29:36
Document Index: 626237219

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 279', '§ 279', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 1331', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 22', '§ 1391']

Reveal Chat Holdco LLC et al v. Facebook, Inc., 3:20-cv-00363, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 16, 2020)
Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 110
`PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK
`PRICE & HECHT LLP
`YAVAR BATHAEE (CA 282388)
`yavar@piercebainbridge.com
`MICHAEL POMERANTZ (NY 2920932) (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com
`DAVID L. HECHT (NY 4695961) (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`dhecht@piercebainbridge.com
`ADAM C. LUDEMANN (NY 5352323) (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`aludemann@piercebainbridge.com
`277 Park Ave. 45th Floor
`New York, NY 10172
`(212) 484-9866
`BRIAN J. DUNNE (CA 275689)
`bdunne@piercebainbridge.com
`355 S. Grand Ave. 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 262-9333
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
` Case No. 3:20-cv-363
`REVEAL CHAT HOLDCO LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company, USA
`TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
`SERVICES, INC. (d/b/a Lenddo USA), a
`Delaware corporation, CIR.CL, INC., a
`dissolved Delaware corporation, and
`BEEHIVE BIOMETRIC, INC., a
`dissolved Delaware corporation,
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 110
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`PARTIES ....................................................................................................................................... 5
` I.
`PLAINTIFFS ..................................................................................................................... 5
` II. DEFENDANT .................................................................................................................... 7
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... 8
`FACTS ........................................................................................................................................... 9
`FACEBOOK EMERGES AS THE DOMINANT SOCIAL NETWORK ........................ 9
`The Last Social Network Standing ........................................................................ 9
`A New Market of Its Own Creation ..................................................................... 11
`The Social Data Barrier to Entry ......................................................................... 14
`Google’s Failed Entry into the Social Data Market ............................................. 16
` II. A THREAT TO FACEBOOK’S MONOPOLY:
`THE RISE OF SMART PHONES AND MOBILE APPS ............................................... 19
`The Mobile App Revolution ................................................................................ 19
`Facebook Recognizes the Looming Threat Presented by
`Mobile Applications.............................................................................................. 23
`The Facebook Platform ........................................................................................ 25
`The Profitable Open Graph Platform and Mobile Install Business ..................... 27
` III. FACEBOOK WEAPONIZES ITS PLATFORM TO
`DESTROY COMPETITION ........................................................................................... 30
`Facebook Makes Plans to Remove Vital Friends and News Feed APIs and
`Refuses to Sell Social Data to Competing Application Developers .................... 30
`Facebook’s Social-Data Heist .............................................................................. 32
`Facebook Targets Its Competitors for Reciprocity or Denial of API Access ...... 37
`The Decision to Remove Developer Access to the Friends, News
`Feed and Other Crucial APIs Lacked Any Legitimate Justification .................... 41
`-i-
` Class Action Complaint
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 110
`(continued)
`Facebook Prepares to Announce Removal of the APIs ....................................... 46
`The Announcement at F8 ..................................................................................... 50
` IV. THE WHITELIST AND DATA SHARING AGREEMENTS ....................................... 51
` V. THE SURVEILLANCE AND ACQUISITION OF
`COMPETITIVE THREATS ............................................................................................. 55
`Facebook Relies on Onavo’s Surveillance of Facebook’s Competitors, and
`Acquires and Uses Onavo’s Assets ...................................................................... 56
`Facebook Identifies Instagram as a Threat and
`Acquires the Company ......................................................................................... 60
`Facebook Acquires WhatsApp ............................................................................ 66
` VI. FACEBOOK’S INTEGRATION OF INSTAGRAM AND WHATSAPP
`WITH ITS FACEBOOK PRODUCT .............................................................................. 71
` VII. THE RELEVANT MARKETS......................................................................................... 77
`The Social Data Market ....................................................................................... 77
`The Social Advertising Market ............................................................................ 83
`Barriers to Entry ................................................................................................... 85
`Relevant Geographic Markets ............................................................................... 87
` VIII. HARM TO COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST INJURY ............................................ 88
`CONCEALMENT AND TOLLING ............................................................................................ 94
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................. 94
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 99
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 106
`JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................................................ 107
`-ii-
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 110
`Plaintiffs allege the following on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
`on information and belief based on the review of only public documents and information. All
`references to internal Facebook documents are exclusively to those published by news
`organizations and other public sources, particularly NBC News.1 Neither Plaintiffs nor the
`undersigned counsel viewed or received, or even had access to, any confidential information about
`Facebook at the time this complaint was filed.
`This action seeks to halt the most brazen, willful anticompetitive scheme in a
`generation—a scheme that verges on final, irreparable completion as of the date of this Complaint.
`Facebook stands today as a paragon of unbridled market power. A company with
`unprecedented reach, Facebook collects and monetizes the activity of more than two billion active
`users around the world. Facebook’s advertising juggernaut produces almost $55 billion in revenue
`in a year, and its founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, enjoys incontestable control over the
`company and its board. Facebook owns some of the most valuable social networks other than
`Facebook itself, including Instagram and WhatsApp. As 2020 begins in earnest, Facebook has no
`serious rival in its key markets—nor any prospect of one.
`It was not always so. In 2010, when Facebook defeated rivals MySpace and
`Friendster and emerged as the winner of the social network wars, the company was caught
`flatfooted by a new technology that threatened its dominance—smartphones.
`Facebook’s dominance had been fortified by powerful network effects—the more
`data it collected on users, the more attractive its social network became to users. As a result, a
`social data barrier to entry (“SDBE”) emerged, protecting Facebook’s business. This SDBE
`1 As of the date of this complaint, NBC’s documents were available at
`https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20191104-facebook-leaked-documents/as
`https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20191104-facebook-leaked-documents/assets/facebook-
`exhibits.pdfsets/facebook-sealed-exhibits.pdf; and
`exhibits.pdf.
`-1-
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 110
`allowed Facebook to fend off a frontal assault by Google’s polished social network, Google+.
`Google, with its massive resources and user base, failed to penetrate the SDBE, and Google
`abandoned the project after it was clear that users were not engaging on its platform.
`Smartphones, however, were different. Significant advances in mobile technology
`allowed users to access the internet from any location, on user interfaces controlled by touch,
`providing a distinct experience from desktop or laptop computers. Special-purpose apps designed
`specifically for smart phones could not only access the Internet, but also users’ address books—a
`ready-made social network from which apps could draw.
`These apps had become direct competitors to Facebook, providing overlapping
`functionality such as messaging, photo sharing, dating, check-ins, and payments. Facebook failed
`to create its own viable mobile app, and by 2011, found its dominance threatened. Zuckerberg
`told Fortune, “[i]t was probably one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made.” Facebook’s own
`mobile app was buggy and slow, garnering one-star ratings in the Apple App Store and crashing
`more often than it worked.
`This existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly in social data and social advertising
`came as the company was barreling towards an initial public offering (“IPO”) worth billions.
`Facebook had successfully built a developer platform upon which third-party developers could
`build social applications, driving engagement on Facebook’s Platform and thereby Facebook’s
`revenue. It was clear, however, that the very same Platform was providing Facebook’s competitors
`with access to Facebook’s network of users. Third-party developers began using Facebook’s
`Platform in more novel and creative ways than Facebook itself was doing. Facebook found itself
`lagging behind these third-party social applications in the mobile arena.
`With its market dominance in imminent danger, Facebook moved to extinguish the
`mobile threat, to obtain a sustaining foothold in the Social Data and Social Advertising Markets,2
`2 Defined terms are set forth elsewhere in the body of the Complaint.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 6 of 110
`and to prevent any newcomers from building rival social networks. To do so, Zuckerberg and
`Facebook’s most senior executives hatched an anticompetitive scheme of unprecedented scale.
`The scheme spanned several fronts:
`First, Facebook moved to crush or co-opt competition that existed on its own
`Platform. Facebook identified and categorized potential market threats, then extinguished those
`threats by cutting them off from key application program interfaces (“APIs”) in Facebook’s
`Platform—functionality that provided social applications with user data that fueled their growth.
`As Facebook’s own executives and engineers acknowledged, the company’s decision to remove
`core functionality from its Platform not only lacked any legitimate or technical justification, but
`Facebook sacrificed massive amounts of additional social data, engagement, and advertising that
`it received from its Platform to do it.
`Second, Facebook collected valuable user data from competing platforms, growing
`its own mobile footprint and constraining the growth of rivals. Facebook accomplished this with a
`network of Whitelist and Data Sharing agreements with direct competitors, including rival social
`networks (such as Pinterest and Foursquare) and apps that generated large amounts of user data
`from engagement (such as Tinder). Facebook coerced these competitors into handing over their
`central assets—their social data—by again leveraging its Platform, threatening the apps with
`extinction by starving them of access to core Platform APIs if they did not join Facebook’s so-
`called “reciprocity” scheme. Those who did join received not only access to social data, but the
`data of others that had joined Facebook’s scheme, with Facebook acting as a hub for the exchange
`of user data among competitors.
`Third, Facebook moved aggressively to shut out entirely direct competitors that
`had built independent social networks of their own and did not rely on Facebook for their social
`data and user base. Facebook revoked the ability of competitors, such as WeChat and Line, to use
`Facebook’s Platform, and even banned them from buying Facebook’s social data through
`advertising, forgoing significant profits to do so.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 7 of 110
`Fourth, Facebook monitored the market for nascent threats to its business, and then
`extinguished these threats through anticompetitive conduct or by targeted acquisition. Facebook
`did so using mobile surveillance technology it acquired from Onavo, a company that cloaked
`spyware in legitimate-looking utility apps. For example, in 2012-13, Facebook’s surveillance
`warned it that both Instagram and WhatsApp were imminent threats to Facebook’s core business,
`with each app having accumulated staggering user bases and levels of engagement while directly
`competing with Facebook. Facebook moved forcibly to acquire both companies, and with each
`acquisition, it dramatically increased its share of the Social Data and Social Advertising markets—
`not only maintaining its market power and the SDBE but, expanding and strengthening them.
`Today, Facebook is rapidly working to integrate the backends of its acquired
`WhatsApp and Instagram assets in the face of regulatory concern over Facebook’s unchecked
`market power and anticompetitive conduct. This is no coincidence. Facebook’s integration efforts
`are deliberately intended to avoid regulatory divestiture of assets, to consolidate the geographic
`regions it controls through its various apps, and to finally flex the market power it acquired through
`those mergers. This last piece of Facebook’s monopolization scheme is on the verge of
`completion—and once culminated, the backend integration will imbue Facebook with unrivaled
`global dominance of the Social Data and Social Advertising Markets.
` The net effect of Facebook’s anticompetitive scheme is one of the largest unlawful
`monopolies ever seen in the United States—one protected by a far-reaching and effectively
`impenetrable barrier to entry arising from feedback loops and powerful network effects. Facebook
`not only has the power to raise prices and keep them high, it can do so without suffering any
`decrease in demand, and without having to provide more value to users to obtain their data. This
`is the very definition of market power. Facebook has sought to bury the story of how it acquired,
`maintained and abused that market power for years, but ultimately it cannot avoid the truth.
`This lawsuit seeks to hold Facebook accountable for its overtly anticompetitive
`conduct. The company, its executives, and its engineers worked together over years to execute the
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 8 of 110
`anticompetitive scheme described in this Complaint. They did so with flagrant disregard for
`competition, for Facebook users, or for the law. Plaintiffs seek trebled damages and injunctive
`relief under the federal antitrust laws to remedy Facebook’s brazen play for dominance—and to
`stop the company from further solidifying its unlawful monopoly, barrier to entry, and market
`power.
`Plaintiff Reveal Chat HoldCo LLC (“Reveal Chat”) is a Delaware limited liability
`company headquartered in Bainbridge Island, WA. Reveal Chat is the successor in interest to
`Reveal Chat, Inc. (f/k/a LikeBright, Inc. (“LikeBright”)), pursuant to an April 2015 merger
`between Reveal Chat and Reveal Chat, Inc.
`LikeBright was founded in 2011 and launched the dating site LikeBright.com that
`same year. LikeBright was designed as a platform to make dating safe and fun for women. Unlike
`most other matchmaking platforms during that time period, Likebright was designed to incorporate
`users’ social media data to help facilitate better matches, drawing on second-degree friend
`connections and shared interests. LikeBright also featured a system in which women could vouch
`for their male friends. In order to facilitate these and other features essential to its business model,
`LikeBright was designed to incorporate—and relied heavily on—social media data made available
`by Facebook to developers (during the time LikeBright operated) through its Open Graph APIs.
`Such social data included friends, photos, likes, groups, pages and other data that facilitated pairing
`members to matches with similar interests and shared friends.
`Plaintiff USA Technology and Management Services, Inc. (d/b/a Lenddo USA)
`(and together with its affiliates, referred to herein as “Lenddo”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business in New York, NY.
`Lenddo is a market leader in alternative credit scoring and identity verification,
`allowing individuals and small enterprises in emerging markets to leverage their digital footprints,
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 9 of 110
`including social media data, to unlock access to financial and credit services to which they might
`not have access through traditional means. Founded in 2011, Lenddo first began underwriting and
`making loans to customers in the Philippines. It then entered the Columbian market in 2012,
`followed shortly thereafter by its entry into the Mexican market in 2013. By 2014, Lenddo had
`originated over 10,000 loans using its proprietary LenddoScore algorithm and was able to provide
`customers the world’s first Facebook-only loan origination process. Lenddo’s origination
`algorithm was designed to incorporate and analyze social media data provided by Facebook to its
`developers, including through its Open Graph APIs, in order to accurately measure credit risk
`based on factors such as friend networks, frequency and consistency of social interactions, and the
`social media characteristics of applicants’ friend connections. In 2015, Lenddo first made available
`to third parties its proprietary data scoring system and began offering identity verification services.
`Plaintiff Cir.cl, Inc. (“Cir.cl”) is a dissolved Delaware corporation formerly
`headquartered in New York, NY. Plaintiff Cir.cl’s claims are brought by and through Carol
`Davidsen, who has been appointed as a receiver by the Delaware Court of Chancery pursuant to 8
`Del. C. § 279 for purposes of pursing Cir.cl’s claims in this action.
`Cir.cl was founded in 2013 and designed an online platform for individuals and
`communities to manage peer-to-peer marketplace transactions, with the goal of allowing real-time
`integration of users’ various online communities. This allowed them to use their digital presence
`and social connections to complete real-life peer-scale marketing and fulfilment goals. Cir.cl’s
`platform was designed around and incorporated its user’s social media data, including data made
`available by Facebook through its Open Graph APIs.
`Plaintiff Beehive Biometric, Inc. (a/k/a Beehive ID) (“Beehive”) is a dissolved
`Delaware corporation formerly headquartered in Austin, TX. Plaintiff Beehive’s claims are
`brought by and through Mary Haskett, who has been appointed as a receiver by the Delaware Court
`of Chancery pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 279 for purposes of pursing Beehive’s claims in this action.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 10 of 110
`Beehive was founded in 2013 and designed an identity verification system drawing
`heavily on social media data through a trademarked and proprietary Social Authentication
`Technology (“SAT”). Beehive’s SAT leveraged social media data, including data made available
`through Facebook’s Open Graph APIs, to identify fraud risks based on unique digital patterns and
`online social interactions.
`Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is a publicly traded company, incorporated
`in Delaware. Facebook’s principal place of business and headquarters is located at 1601 Willow
`Road in Menlo Park, California.
`Founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook is a social media company that
`provides online services to two billion users around the world. In exchange for providing services,
`Facebook collects user data, which it uses to create and sell targeted advertising services.
`Facebook’s principal revenue is from targeted social media advertising that it provides to
`advertisers as a data broker.
`Facebook also operates as a platform for third-party applications and hardware, and
`owns and operates several business divisions:
` Facebook. Facebook’s core application, which bears the Company’s name, is,
`according to Facebook’s filing with shareholders, designed to enable “people to
`connect, share, discover, and communicate with each other on mobile devices and
`personal computers.” The Facebook core product contains a “News Feed” that
`displays an algorithmically ranked series of stories and advertisements
`individualized for each person.
`
`Instagram. Instagram is a photo sharing application, which allows users to share
`photos, videos and messages on mobile devices. Instagram was acquired in April
`2012 and at present, Facebook operates Instagram as a separate application from its
`core Facebook product—but that is about to change, absent relief from this Court.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 11 of 110
` Messenger. Facebook’s Messenger application is a multimedia messaging
`application, allowing messages that include photos and videos to be sent from
`person to person across platforms and devices.
` WhatsApp. WhatsApp is a secure messaging application used by individuals and
`businesses. WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook in 2014 for $21.8 billion, and at
`the time had approximately 450 million users worldwide. Facebook operates
`WhatsApp as its own application, separate from its Messenger and Facebook
`products and lines of business—but that is about to change, absent relief from this
` Oculus. Oculus is Facebook’s virtual reality hardware line of business, which
`Facebook acquired in March 2014 for approximately $2 billion.
`Facebook’s revenue as of year-end 2018 was $55.84 billion, with net income from
`operations of $21.11 billion. Almost all of this revenue ($55 billion) came from advertising. As of
`year-end 2018, Facebook maintained $41.11 billion in cash and cash-equivalent securities.
`Facebook employed 35,587 people around the world at the end of 2018.
`Across all of its lines of business, Facebook reported to investors in 2018 that it had
`1.52 billion daily active users (“DAU”) on average for the year. Facebook reported 2.32 billion
`monthly active users (“MAU”) on average during the same period.
`This action arises under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C.
`§§ 1 and 2) and sections 4, 7, and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a), 18, and 26). The
`action seeks to recover treble damages, interest, costs of suit, equitable relief, and reasonable
`attorneys’ fees for damages to Plaintiffs and members of the Class resulting from Defendant’s
`restraints of trade and monopolization of the Social Data and/or Social Advertising Markets
`described herein.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 12 of 110
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal
`question), 1332 (class action diversity jurisdiction), and 1337(a) (antitrust); and under 15 U.S.C.
`§ 15 (antitrust).
`Venue is appropriate in this district under 15 U.S.C. § 15(a) (Clayton Act), 15
`U.S.C. § 22 (nationwide venue for antitrust matters), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (general venue
`provision). Facebook transacts business within this district, and it transacts its affairs and carries
`out interstate trade and commerce, in substantial part, in this district.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook as it is subject to general
`jurisdiction in the State of California, where it maintains its headquarters and its principal place of
`business. The scheme, conspiracy, and monopolization alleged in this Complaint was targeted at
`individuals throughout the world and the United States, causing injury to persons not only
`throughout the world, but in the United States, including in this district.
`FACTS
`FACEBOOK EMERGES AS THE DOMINANT SOCIAL NETWORK
`The Last Social Network Standing
`Facebook’s meteoric rise since its founding in 2004 is well documented. The
`company—started in the dorm room of its CEO Mark Zuckerberg (“Zuckerberg”) as “the
`facebook”—rose to prominence in the face of fierce competition from several social networks.
`Initially an exclusive service for elite universities throughout the United States, Facebook
`eventually expanded its network to encompass a general audience of users throughout the United
`States and worldwide.
`Between 2004 and 2010, Facebook vanquished a number of rivals to emerge as the
`dominant social network in the United States.
`Facebook’s first chief competitor was MySpace. Founded in 2003—a year before
`Facebook—MySpace targeted the same audience, provided largely the same services, and rapidly
`attracted an enormous number of users. By 2005, MySpace had 25 million active users, and was
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 13 of 110
`acquired by NewsCorp for $580 million. In 2006, MySpace registered 100 million users, passing
`Google as the most visited website in the United States.
`However, the next three years featured a steady downward spiral for MySpace—
`and countervailing growth by Facebook. In 2008, Facebook passed MySpace in worldwide active
`users, and continued to grow, reaching 307 million active users across the globe by April 2009. In
`May 2009, Facebook passed MySpace in United States, 70.28 million to 70.26 million monthly
`active users.
`39. MySpace never came close to Facebook again. By 2010, MySpace had mostly
`exited the market, leaving the business of social media for good. MySpace’s CEO capitulated in
`November of 2010: “MySpace is not a social network anymore. It is now a social entertainment
`destination.” In September 2010, MySpace reported that it had lost $126 million, and in June 2011,
`NewsCorp sold the company for $35 million—$545 million less than it had paid for MySpace just
`six years earlier. By then, its user base had dwindled to just 3 million monthly visitors.
`During the same time period, several other social networks also met their demise,
`including Google’s Orkut, AOL’s Bebo, and Friendster, which failed to scale rapidly enough to
`compete with MySpace and Facebook.
`By 2009 and through 2010, Facebook emerged as the only peer-to-peer social
`media network to exist at scale, and no other network or company rivaled Facebook’s massive user
`base. On March 2, 2010, Adweek reported that Facebook had booked revenues of up to $700
`million in 2009 and was on track for $1.1 Billion in 2010—almost all from advertising to its newly
`won users. Facebook had been roughly doubling its revenues every year up until that point—$150
`million in 2007; $280-300 million in 2008; and $700 million in 2009.
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 14 of 110
`Time Magazine heralded Zuckerberg as its 2010 Person of the Year.
`Time’s cover story set out the stakes—the scope of the newly assembled social
`network was unprecedented and staggering:
`What just happened? In less than seven years, Zuckerberg wired
`together a twelfth of humanity into a single network, thereby
`creating a social entity almost twice as large as the U.S. If Facebook
`were a country it would be the third largest, behind only China and
`India. It started out as a lark, a diversion, but it has turned into
`something real, something that has changed the way human beings
`relate to one another on a species-wide scale. We are now running
`our social lives through a for-profit network that, on paper at least,
`has made Zuckerberg a billionaire six times over.
`By 2010, Facebook was unrivaled and dominant in a way no company since
`Microsoft had been in post-personal-computer history. And it had done so by riding the currents
`of powerful network effects.
`A New Market of Its Own Creation
`By the beginning of the millennium’s second decade, Facebook was the
`indisputable king of an entirely new market—a market built not on hardware or operating system
`dominance, but one built on a network of people, with its power and value directly derived from
`Case 3:20-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 15 of 110
`their engagement with that network. The more data users fed into Facebook by communicating
`and interacting with each other, posting their pictures, and publishing their content, the more
`valuable the Facebook network became to third parties, who could advertise to Facebook’s users
`by targeting them using the very information they provided to Facebook’s network.
`Data about what information users shared on their personal pages; the photos and
`profiles they viewed; their connections to others; what they shared with others; and even what they
`put in messages to