IRONY: Dismissal Of Privacy Suit Missed By Many

While the press corps churned about a public relations snafu that most of the 675 million Facebook users couldn't care less about, a federal judge opened the floodgates for five privacy lawsuits to get refiled against the social network.

Oh, the irony! While the press corps churned about a public relations snafu that most of the 675 million Facebook users couldn’t care less about, a federal judge opened the floodgates for five privacy lawsuits to get refiled against the social network.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose, California, handed down a decision enabling plaintiffs to refile five out of eight claims of privacy violations.

He nixed Facebook’s claim that the entire lawsuit ought to be dismissed because the complainants didn’t show a sufficient injury that would warrant the case.

The specific gripe here concerns the privacy controversy that arose this past October: When Facebook users click on advertisements, the advertisers receive the clicking parties’ identification.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish that they have suffered the injury required for standing,” the judge wrote in his decision.

Click here to read a copy of In re Facebook, 10-02389, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).

In case you missed the nuances that make this decision so ironic, it came on a day when Facebook acknowledged hiring Burson-Marsteller to pitch opinion articles panning the way Google shares information about users.

We will update this post with any comment on the case that Facebook would offer us. Meanwhile, readers, what do you think?