I sued Meta over my disabled accounts — here is the defense Meta used
If you're considering suing Meta over a hacked or
disabled Facebook or Instagram account, I want to
tell you what happened when I did.
Meta disabled my accounts. It later notified me
that I had not violated its Community Standards,
restored my accounts, and then disabled them again.
I eventually sued Meta in small claims court.
Meta's attorney relied on the Terms of Service and
argued, in substance, that Meta had the contractual
right to disable my account.
The judge ruled in Meta's favor.
If I were facing that argument again, I would be
prepared to raise another issue: Meta's enormous
market power.
Meta can essentially say:
"You agreed to our Terms."
But how meaningful is that agreement when the
terms are take-it-or-leave-it and walking away can
mean losing access to Facebook, Instagram, your
contacts, followers, business connections, photos,
and years of accumulated activity?
Can a company use its market power to impose terms
that effectively give it the right to remove a
person's access even when that person did not
violate its rules?
I don't know whether that argument would have
changed the outcome of my case, and I'm not a
lawyer.
But if you're considering suing Meta, I think the
market-power/monopoly issue is worth discussing
before Meta walks into court and says:
"You agreed to the Terms."
I wish I had been prepared for that argument when
I sued Meta.