Lawsuits involving Meta Platforms

| ConnectU.com lawsuit

| {{Main|ConnectU}}

Divya Narendra, Cameron Winklevoss, and Tyler Winklevoss, founders of the social network ConnectU, filed a lawsuit against Facebook in September 2004. The lawsuit alleged that Zuckerberg had broken an oral contract to build the social-networking site, copied the idea,{{cite news|title=Facebook, ConnectU settle dispute:Case an intellectual property kerfuffle|url=https://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/06/27/facebook_connectu_settle_dispute|author=Michael Levenson|newspaper=Boston Globe|date=June 27, 2008|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=March 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133839/http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/06/27/facebook_connectu_settle_dispute/|url-status=live}}Malcom A. Glenn, [https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519386 "For Now, Facebook Foes Continue Fight Against Site"], The Harvard Crimson, July 27, 2007 and used source code that they provided to Zuckerberg to create competing site Facebook.{{cite news|first=Luke |last=O'Brien |url=http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724.html |title=Poking Facebook |work=02138 |date=November–December 2007 |page=66 |access-date=June 26, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080514205853/http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724.html |archive-date=May 14, 2008 }}{{cite news|first=Timothy J.|last=McGinn|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070815192011/http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513007|title=Lawsuit Threatens To Close Facebook|work=Harvard Crimson|date=September 13, 2004|archive-date=August 15, 2007 |access-date=March 8, 2008}}{{cite news|access-date=March 8, 2008 |first=Alexander |last=Maugeri |url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/20/news/10767.shtml |title=TheFacebook.com faces lawsuit |work=The Daily Princetonian |date=September 20, 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080109055658/http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/20/news/10767.shtml |archive-date=January 9, 2008 }}{{cite news|access-date=March 15, 2008|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews|title=Facebook in court over ownership|work=The Guardian|date=July 25, 2007|author=Tryhorn, Chris|location=London|archive-date=February 8, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110208012413/http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews|url-status=live}} Facebook countersued in regards to Social Butterfly, a project put out by The Winklevoss Chang Group, an alleged partnership between ConnectU and i2hub. It named among the defendants ConnectU, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, Divya Narendra, and Wayne Chang, founder of i2hub.{{cite news|publisher=Justia|url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2007cv01389/189975|date=March 9, 2007|title=The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al|author=California Northern District Court|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=March 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302044258/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2007cv01389/189975|url-status=live}} The parties reached a settlement agreement in February 2008, for $20 million in cash and 1,253,326 Facebook shares. On August 26, 2010, The New York Times reported that Facebook shares were trading at $76 per share in the secondary market, putting the total settlement value now at close to $120 million.{{cite news|work=The New York Times|url=http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/investors-value-facebook-at-up-to-33-7-billion|date=August 26, 2010|title=Investors Value Facebook at Up to $33.7 Billion|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=October 29, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101029213228/http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/investors-value-facebook-at-up-to-33-7-billion/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|work=VentureBeat|url=https://venturebeat.com/2009/02/12/financial-wrinkle-lost-connectu-some-facebook-settlement-dollars|date=February 12, 2009|title=Financial wrinkle lost ConnectU some Facebook settlement dollars|author=Eric Eldon|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=July 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728225639/https://venturebeat.com/2009/02/12/financial-wrinkle-lost-connectu-some-facebook-settlement-dollars/|url-status=live}}

ConnectU filed another lawsuit against Facebook on March 11, 2008,{{cite web|access-date=March 15, 2008|url=http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/11000507/Getting-the-startup-documenta.html|title=Getting the start-up documentation right|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=March 11, 2008|author=Jagadeesh, Namitha|archive-date=March 14, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080314233522/http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/11000507/Getting-the-startup-documenta.html|url-status=live}} attempting to rescind the settlement, claiming that Facebook, in settlement negotiations, had overstated the value of stock it was granting the ConnectU founders as part of the settlement. ConnectU argued that Facebook represented itself as being worth $15 billion at the time, due to the post-money valuation arising from Microsoft's purchase in 2007 of a 1.6% stake in Facebook for US$246 million. Facebook announced that valuation in a press release.{{cite web|title=FACEBOOK GOT ITS $15 BILLION VALUATION — NOW WHAT?|url=http://themarketingheaven.com/facebook-got-15-billion-valuation-now/|access-date=July 7, 2014|archive-date=July 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715000328/http://themarketingheaven.com/facebook-got-15-billion-valuation-now/|url-status=live}} However, Facebook subsequently performed an internal valuation that estimated a company value of $3.75 billion.{{cite news|url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/internal-facebook-valuation-points-strategic/story.aspx?guid=E0ED3368-7496-4854-8440-6DB6FFDBA4A8&dist=SecEditorsPicks|title=Internal Facebook valuation points to strategic merit - Valuation is far below the $15 billion cited at time of Microsoft investment|access-date=July 7, 2008|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|archive-date=July 6, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706230620/http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/internal-facebook-valuation-points-strategic/story.aspx?guid=E0ED3368-7496-4854-8440-6DB6FFDBA4A8&dist=SecEditorsPicks|url-status=live}} ConnectU then fired the law firm Quinn Emanuel that had represented it in settlement discussions. Quinn Emanuel filed a $13 million lien against the settlement proceeds and ConnectU sued for malpractice.{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/27/facebook-wins-connectu-appeal-blames-fee-dispute|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=June 27, 2008|title=Facebook Wins ConnectU Appeal, Blames Fee Dispute|author=Dan Slater|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=June 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200616091854/https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/27/facebook-wins-connectu-appeal-blames-fee-dispute/|url-status=live}} On August 25, 2010, an arbitration panel ruled that Quinn Emanuel had "earned its full contingency fee". It also found that Quinn Emanuel committed no malpractice.{{cite magazine|magazine=The National Law Journal|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202472039360&Arbitrators_Confirm_Quinn_Emanuels_Fee_in_Facebook_Settlement|date=September 15, 2010|title=Arbitrators Confirm Quinn Emanuel's Fee in Facebook Settlement|author=Nate Raymond}} ConnectU's lawsuit against Facebook to quadruple its settlement remains ongoing.

In January 2010, it was reported that i2hub founder Wayne Chang and The i2hub Organization launched a lawsuit against ConnectU and its founders, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, seeking 50% of the settlement. The complaint states "Through this litigation, Chang asserts his ownership interest in The Winklevoss Chang Group and ConnectU, including the settlement proceeds."{{cite news|publisher=CNET News|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10424028-36.html|date=January 4, 2010|title=Fresh legal woes for ConnectU founders|author=Caroline McCarthy|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=March 13, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140313031247/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10424028-36.html|url-status=dead}} Lee Gesmer (of Gesmer Updegrove, LLP) posted the [https://www.scribd.com/doc/25379721/Chang-v-Winklevoss-Complaint detailed 33-page complaint] online.{{cite news|publisher=Mass Law Blog|url=http://masslawblog.com/business-lit-session/connectu-and-facebook-goes-on-forever|date=January 18, 2010|title=The Road Goes on Forever, But the Lawsuits Never End: ConnectU, Facebook, Their Entourages|author=Lee Gesmer|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=August 1, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801044946/https://masslawblog.com/business-lit-session/connectu-and-facebook-goes-on-forever/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|publisher=Commonwealth of Massachusetts|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/25379721/Chang-v-Winklevoss-Complaint|date=January 18, 2010|title=Chang v. Winklevoss Complaint|author=Lee Gesmer|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=January 21, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160121153054/http://www.scribd.com/doc/25379721/Chang-v-Winklevoss-Complaint|url-status=live}} On April 12, 2011, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the Winklevoss brothers, whose fight over Facebook's origins was a major narrative arc of the film The Social Network, cannot back out of a settlement they signed with the company in 2008.

| {{anchor|Aaron_Greenspan}}Aaron Greenspan and houseSYSTEM

| Aaron Greenspan created a web portal as an undergraduate called houseSYSTEM that launched in August 2003.{{Cite web|title=Student Site Stirs Controversy {{!}} News {{!}} The Harvard Crimson|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/8/8/student-site-stirs-controversy-a-sharp/|access-date=2020-12-10|website=www.thecrimson.com|archive-date=2020-11-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112003813/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/8/8/student-site-stirs-controversy-a-sharp/|url-status=live}} Two weeks after launching Harvard became aware that houseSYSTEM was asking for students' Harvard network credentials in violation of the school's policy, and ordered Greenspan to shut the site down immediately. Greenspan was required to turn over a list of students so the administration could reset their passwords, with the threat of disciplinary action if he failed to comply.{{Cite web|title=Concerns Over Web Portal Force Password Change {{!}} News {{!}} The Harvard Crimson|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/8/15/concerns-over-web-portal-force-password/|access-date=2020-12-10|website=www.thecrimson.com|archive-date=2021-05-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210528234509/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/8/15/concerns-over-web-portal-force-password/|url-status=live}}

Seven months after the initial launch of houseSYSTEM Greenspan added a new social networking module called FaceNet to compete with Facebook, telling the Harvard Crimson, "It is possible for multiple sites to co-exist. [We support] entrepreneurship, and we applaud Mark’s efforts. Competition is a very real part of entrepreneurship".{{Cite web|title=New Online Facebook Launched {{!}} News {{!}} The Harvard Crimson|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/19/new-online-facebook-launched-mark-e/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=www.thecrimson.com|archive-date=2020-11-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112014445/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/19/new-online-facebook-launched-mark-e/|url-status=live}} However, students who had tried both websites expressed doubts about Greenspan's website noting that "FaceNet isn’t as easy to use as thefacebook.com. It might be too little, too late. It will be hard to compete with thefacebook.com when thefacebook.com already has about 5,000 members and lots of momentum".

In 2006, two years after Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook.com, Greenspan claimed in an open letter to Zuckerberg that Facebook used features that originally belonged to houseSYSTEM.{{Cite web|last=Douglas|first=Nick|title=Someone's jealous: A college pal writes an open letter to Facebook's founder|url=http://gawker.com/203135/someones-jealous-a-college-pal-writes-an-open-letter-to-facebooks-founder|access-date=2020-06-14|website=Gawker|language=en|archive-date=2021-01-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121084819/https://gawker.com/203135/someones-jealous-a-college-pal-writes-an-open-letter-to-facebooks-founder|url-status=live}} Regarding Greenspan's allegations, years later Zuckerberg was described in The New York Times as "saying through a spokeswoman that he was not sure how to respond".{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin|title=Who Founded Facebook? A New Claim Emerges|access-date=September 2, 2007|work=The New York Times|first=John|last=Markoff|date=September 1, 2007|archive-date=December 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161206200510/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin|url-status=live}} Greenspan later filed a Petition to Cancel the "Facebook" trademark at USPTO.{{cite web |url=http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92049206&pty=CAN |title=USPTO TTABVUE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System Cancellation No. 92049206 |website=Ttabvue.uspto.gov |access-date=February 23, 2014 |archive-date=January 21, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160121153056/http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92049206&pty=CAN |url-status=live }} Facebook, Inc. agreed to a formal settlement with Greenspan in late May 2009 and issued a press release, but the terms were not disclosed.{{cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2009/05/facebook-and-think-computer-corporation-resolve-trademark-dispute/|title=Facebook and Think Computer Corporation Resolve Trademark Dispute|date=May 22, 2009|access-date=June 4, 2020|archive-date=November 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191102012700/https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2009/05/facebook-and-think-computer-corporation-resolve-trademark-dispute/|url-status=live}}

| 2009 class action lawsuit

| On November 17, 2009, Rebecca Swift, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against Zynga and Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for violation of the Unfair competition law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust enrichment.{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5408472/facebook-named-in-federal-class+action-suit-over-scammy-zynga-ads |title=Facebook Named in Federal Class-Action Suit over Scammy Zynga Ads |last=Tate|first=Ryan|access-date=February 21, 2010 |date=November 19, 2009 |publisher=Valleywag |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100217045152/http://gawker.com/5408472/facebook-named-in-federal-class%20action-suit-over-scammy-zynga-ads |archive-date=February 17, 2010 }}{{cite web|url=http://valleywag.gawker.com/5408473/initial-complaint-in-swift-vs-zynga |title=Initial Complaint in Swift vs. Zynga |last=Tate|first=Ryan|access-date=February 21, 2010 |date=November 19, 2009 |publisher=Valleywag |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100308064339/http://valleywag.gawker.com/5408473/initial-complaint-in-swift-vs-zynga |archive-date=March 8, 2010 }}

| Lane v. Facebook, Inc.

| In March 2010, Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order approving the class settlement in Lane v. Facebook, Inc.{{cite web|title=FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 03/17/2010.|url=https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/5--08-cv-03845/Lane_et_al_v_Facebook_Inc_et_al/123/|publisher=Docket Alarm, Inc.|access-date=July 19, 2013|archive-date=March 3, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303212033/https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/5--08-cv-03845/Lane_et_al_v._Facebook_Inc._et_al/123/|url-status=live}} This lawsuit charged that user's private information was being posted on Facebook without consent using Facebook's Beacon program.

| Paul Ceglia

| On June 30, 2010, Paul Ceglia, the owner of a wood pellet fuel company in Allegany County, New York, filed a lawsuit against Zuckerberg, claiming 84% ownership of Facebook as well as additional monetary damages. According to Ceglia, he and Zuckerberg signed a contract on April 28, 2003, that for an initial fee of $1,000, entitles Ceglia to 50% of the website's revenue, as well as additional 1% interest per each day after January 1, 2004, until website completion. Zuckerberg was developing other projects at the time, among which was Facemash, the predecessor of Facebook, but did not register the domain name thefacebook.com until January 1, 2004. Facebook management has dismissed the lawsuit as "completely frivolous". Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt issued a statement indicating that the counsel for Ceglia had unsuccessfully attempted to seek an out-of-court settlement. In an interview to ABC World News, Zuckerberg stated he is confident of never signing such an agreement. At the time, Zuckerberg worked for Ceglia as a code developer on a project named "StreetFax". Judge Thomas Brown of Allegany Court issued a restraining order on all financial transfers concerning ownership of Facebook until further notice; in response, Facebook management successfully filed for the case to be moved to federal court. According to Facebook, the order does not affect their business but lacks legal basis.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66C01L20100713|title=Facebook fights New Yorker's claim of 84 percent stake|author=Oreskovic, Alexei|work=Reuters|date=July 12, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2010|archive-date=July 23, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100723110636/http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66C01L20100713|url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703283004575363330101240888|title=Man Claims Ownership of Facebook|author=Fowler, Geoffrey A.|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=July 13, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2010|archive-date=March 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150331023938/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703283004575363330101240888|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100722/zuckerberg-%E2%80%98quite-sure%E2%80%99-he-didn039t-hand-over-84-facebook-ceglia-id-10121479.html|title=Zuckerberg 'quite sure' he didn't hand over 84% Facebook to Ceglia|author=Priyanka|publisher=The Money Times|date=July 22, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100725174749/http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100722/zuckerberg-%E2%80%98quite-sure%E2%80%99-he-didn039t-hand-over-84-facebook-ceglia-id-10121479.html|archive-date=July 25, 2010}}{{cite web|url=http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/original-facebook-website-designer-sues-for-84-of-company/19552015|title=Facebook and Website Designer Paul Ceglia Brawl Over 84% Stake|author=Kawamoto, Dawn|website=DailyFinance.com|date=July 13, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100716171457/http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/original-facebook-website-designer-sues-for-84-of-company/19552015/|archive-date=July 16, 2010|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=http://pulse2.com/2010/07/13/paul-ceglia-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-claiming-to-own-84-of-the-company/|title=Paul Ceglia Files Lawsuit Against Facebook Claiming To Own 84% Of The Company|author=Chowdhry, Amit|publisher=Pulse2|date=July 13, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100725180055/http://pulse2.com/2010/07/13/paul-ceglia-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-claiming-to-own-84-of-the-company/|archive-date=July 25, 2010|url-status=dead}}{{cite news|url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/paul-ceglia-facebook-owne_n_643550.html|title=Paul Ceglia Claims To Own 84% Stake In Facebook|author=Bosker, Bianca|work=The Huffington Post|date=July 13, 2007|access-date=July 22, 2010|archive-date=July 17, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100717022451/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/paul-ceglia-facebook-owne_n_643550.html|url-status=live}}

| Young v. Facebook, Inc.

| In Young v. Facebook, Inc., plaintiff Karen Beth Young alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws on disability as well as breach of contract and negligence. A District Court judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that Facebook is a website, not a physical place, so the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply.{{Citation |last = Goldman |first = Eric |title = Facebook User Loses Lawsuit Over Account Termination—Young v. Facebook |date = May 9, 2011 |url = http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/05/facebook_user_l.htm |access-date = June 4, 2020 |archive-date = March 27, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120327171023/http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/05/facebook_user_l.htm |url-status = live }}

| Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.

|Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. was a class-action case that alleged that Facebook had misappropriated users' names and likenesses in advertisements.{{cite web |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |title=Appeals court upholds deal allowing kids' images in Facebook ads |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |website=Ars Technica |publisher=Condé Nast |date=January 7, 2016 |access-date=June 14, 2017 |archive-date=February 7, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207020002/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |url-status=live }} The case settled in 2013, with checks to class members mailed in November 2016.{{cite news |last1=Bixenspan |first1=David |title=Yes, That Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Check You Got is Real |url=http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/why-did-we-get-facebook-class-action-lawsuit-checks-in-the-mail-today/ |access-date=November 22, 2016 |work=Law Newz |date=November 21, 2016 |archive-date=November 22, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161122045552/http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/why-did-we-get-facebook-class-action-lawsuit-checks-in-the-mail-today/ |url-status=live }}

| Rutledge v. Facebook, Inc.

|On October 12, 2011, Brooke Rutledge filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that up until September 23, 2011, it had tracked users while logged-out, going as far as to gather information related to the users' browsing history. Facebook denied the allegations, claiming that the lawsuit is "without merit".{{cite news|last1=Potter|first1=Ned|title=Facebook Privacy: Lawsuit Charges Facebook Tracked Users Even After they Logged Off|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-privacy-mississippi-woman-sues-facebook-tracked-online/story?id=14754964|access-date=22 February 2022|work=ABC News|date=17 October 2011|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222090514/https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-privacy-mississippi-woman-sues-facebook-tracked-online/story?id=14754964|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=MS Woman Latest To Sue Facebook|url=https://www.wbbjtv.com/2011/10/13/ms-woman-latest-to-sue-facebook|access-date=22 February 2022|work=WBBJ-TV|date=13 October 2011|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222090522/https://www.wbbjtv.com/2011/10/13/ms-woman-latest-to-sue-facebook/|url-status=live}}

| Tracking logged-out users

| In 2012, Facebook users sued Facebook for $15 billion for tracking them while they were logged-out via cookies and plug-ins. The issue was said to date back as early as December 2009. The lawsuit combined 21 cases across the United States from 2011 to early 2012.{{cite news|last1=Protalinski|first1=Emil|title=Facebook hit with $15 billion class action user tracking lawsuit|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hit-with-15-billion-class-action-user-tracking-lawsuit/|access-date=17 February 2022|work=ZDNet|date=18 May 2012|language=en|archive-date=2 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220202183235/https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hit-with-15-billion-class-action-user-tracking-lawsuit/|url-status=live}} The lawsuit was dismissed in 2017 as the prosecutors failed to show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy or that they had suffered economic harm, but was later revived in 2020 by a federal appeals court, which claimed that there was economic harm involved. Facebook tried to get the Supreme Court involved, but failed. On February 14, 2022, Facebook agreed to pay $90 million to settle the lawsuit, which would be distributed across affected users.{{cite news|last1=Kelly|first1=Makena|title=Meta's Facebook to pay $90 million to settle decade-old privacy lawsuit|url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/15/22935147/meta-facebook-privacy-like-tracking-data-settlement|access-date=17 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=15 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=16 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220216151002/https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/15/22935147/meta-facebook-privacy-like-tracking-data-settlement|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Jackson|first1=Sarah|title=Meta agrees to pay $90 million to settle a lawsuit alleging Facebook kept tracking users after they logged off|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-facebook-pay-90-million-lawsuit-tracking-users-logged-off-2022-2|access-date=17 February 2022|work=Business Insider|date=February 15, 2022|archive-date=17 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217010102/https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-facebook-pay-90-million-lawsuit-tracking-users-logged-off-2022-2|url-status=live}}

| Eight Mile Style v. Facebook, Inc.

| On May 20, 2013, Eminem's publisher Eight Mile Style sued Facebook for airing an advertisement on April 4 that copied Eminem's song Under the Influence, infringing his copyright.{{cite news|last1=McCollum|first1=Brian|title=Eminem's publisher sues Facebook over ad|url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/21/eminem-facebook-lawsuit/2344913|access-date=19 February 2022|work=USA Today|date=May 21, 2013|archive-date=3 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303212033/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/21/eminem-facebook-lawsuit/2344913/|url-status=live}}

| Campbell, Hurley v. Facebook, Inc.

| On December 30, 2013, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that Facebook scanned private messages that had URLs in them for purposes such as data mining and user profiling, therefore violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all United States residents affected.{{cite news|last1=Grove|first1=Jennifer|title=Facebook sued for allegedly intercepting private messages|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57616496-93/facebook-sued-for-allegedly-intercepting-private-messages|access-date=20 February 2022|work=CNET|date=January 2, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140131111849/http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57616496-93/facebook-sued-for-allegedly-intercepting-private-messages/|archive-date=January 31, 2014|url-status=dead}}

|''UFC-Que Choisir v. Facebook, Inc., Apple, Inc., Google, LLC'

|On March 25, 2014, French consumers group UFC-Que Choisir filed a lawsuit against Facebook, alongside Apple and Google, claiming that they breached users' privacy and failed to notice multiple warnings informing them to modify their terms of conditions.{{cite news|last1=Laurent|first1=Dheepthika|title=Facebook, Twitter and Google targeted in French lawsuit|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/25/world/europe/france-social-media-lawsuit/index.html|access-date=20 February 2022|work=CNN|date=March 26, 2014|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220155924/https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/25/world/europe/france-social-media-lawsuit/index.html|url-status=live}}

|Espinoza v. Facebook, Inc.

|On June 6, 2014, shareholder Ernesto Espinoza sued Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook directors over allegations that a policy that let them award directors annually more than $150 million of stock each is unreasonably generous.{{cite news|last1=Stempel|first1=Jonathan|title=Zuckerberg, other Facebook directors are sued over pay plan|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-lawsuit-idUSKBN0EK1YO20140609|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=9 June 2014|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221183411/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-lawsuit-idUSKBN0EK1YO20140609|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Facebook sued over director compensation|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/09/facebook-sued-over-director-compensation.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=CNBC|date=9 June 2014|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221183411/https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/09/facebook-sued-over-director-compensation.html|url-status=live}}

|Hong v. Facebook, Inc.

|On March 16, 2015, Chia Hong filed a lawsuit against Facebook under allegations of gender discrimination, stating that her former boss, Anil Wilson, harassed her. Hong claimed that after filing a complaint about Wilson in October 2013, Facebook gave a negative evaluation and fired her. Hong also stated that the harassment caused her emotional distress and a loss of earnings.{{cite news|last1=Kelly|first1=Heather|title=Facebook gets sued for gender discrimination|url=https://money.cnn.com/2015/03/18/technology/facebook-discrimination-suit/index.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=CNN|date=18 March 2015|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221155140/https://money.cnn.com/2015/03/18/technology/facebook-discrimination-suit/index.html|url-status=live}}

|Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

|In 2015, Six4Three sued Facebook for restricting its access to user data, which most of its products relied on. Later in 2017, Facebook filed an anti-SLAPP motion and in 2018, while the motion was pending, Six4Three issued a fifth amended complaint, involving individual defendants who also filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Months prior to the lawsuit going into trial in April 2019, Six4Three founder Ted Kramer released a cache of confidential Facebook documents to the British Parliament, which the judge managing the case, V Raymond Swope, condemned, questioning why Six4Three's lawyers gave Kramer access to the documents.{{cite news|last1=Solon|first1=Olivia|last2=Farivar|first2=Cyrus|title=Inside bikini-photo startup Six4Three’s scrappy battle to put Facebook on trial|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/inside-bikini-photo-startup-six4three-s-scrappy-battle-put-facebook-n995016|access-date=20 February 2022|work=NBC News|date=April 16, 2019|language=en|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220153335/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/inside-bikini-photo-startup-six4three-s-scrappy-battle-put-facebook-n995016|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.|url=https://casetext.com/case/six4three-llc-v-facebook-inc-1|access-date=20 February 2022|website=Casetext|date=September 30, 2019|archive-date=3 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303212032/https://casetext.com/case/six4three-llc-v-facebook-inc-1|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Wong|first1=Julia|last2=Levin|first2=Sam|title=California judge condemns startup for giving secret Facebook papers to UK|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/30/facebook-lawsuit-six4three-documents-court-uk|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=December 1, 2018|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220153335/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/30/facebook-lawsuit-six4three-documents-court-uk|url-status=live}}

|Belgium v. Facebook, Inc.

|In June 2015, the Belgian privacy commission sued Facebook for violating Belgian and European privacy laws by tracking logged-out users and non-users for advertising purposes, with president Willem Debeuckelaere claiming that Facebook ignores its users' privacy. A Facebook spokesperson expressed disappointment as they had planned a meetup on June 19 prior to the lawsuit being filed.{{cite news|last1=Gibbs|first1=Samuel|title=Belgium takes Facebook to court over privacy breaches and user tracking|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/15/belgium-facebook-court-privacy-breaches-ads|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=15 June 2015|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219171327/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/15/belgium-facebook-court-privacy-breaches-ads|url-status=live}}

|Photo tagging lawsuit

|In May 2016, Facebook faced a lawsuit from Facebook users over privacy concerns, claiming that the automatic photo tagging feature is too invasive. The lawsuit was filed as Facebook had failed to comply with the Biometric Information Privacy Act recently passed in Illinois.{{cite news|title=Facebook facing lawsuit over photo tagging|url=https://abc7news.com/biometric-data-facebook-being-sued-for-photo-tagging-how-to-turn-off-the-feature-on/1326299|access-date=21 February 2022|work=KGO-TV|date=6 May 2016|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222014147/https://abc7news.com/biometric-data-facebook-being-sued-for-photo-tagging-how-to-turn-off-the-feature-on/1326299/|url-status=live}}

|Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.

|On May 18, 2016, Matthew Campbell filed a lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly scanning private messages for marketing purposes, which violates federal privacy laws. Facebook argued that multiple private messages are scanned at once and that the URL data is anonymous and only used in a combined form.{{cite news|last1=Brandom|first1=Russell|title=Lawsuit claims Facebook illegally scanned private messages|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=19 May 2016|language=en|archive-date=7 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207020005/https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit|url-status=live}}

|Lawsuit over San Bernardino shootings

|In December 2016, the families of three victims in the 2015 San Bernardino attack sued Facebook, Google and Twitter for allowing Islamic State militants to spread propaganda on their platforms, providing support to the group and enabling attacks such as the aforementioned San Bernardino attack.{{cite news|last1=Whitcomb|first1=Dan|title=Families of San Bernardino shooting sue Facebook, Google, Twitter|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sanbernardino-attack-lawsuit-idUSKBN1802SL|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=4 May 2017|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221094643/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sanbernardino-attack-lawsuit-idUSKBN1802SL|url-status=live}}

|Modamani v. Facebook, Inc.

|In February 2017, Syrian refugee Anas Modamani sued Facebook after a photo he took with Chancellor Angela Merkel in August 2015 at his shelter in Berlin became the subject of a series of fake news articles, which accused refugees of being responsible for the 2016 Brussels bombings and Modamani himself of being responsible for the 2016 Berlin truck attack and an assault on a homeless man. Modamani sought to get Facebook to remove any libellous posts that included him,{{cite news|last1=Toor|first1=Amar|title=Syrian refugee sues Facebook over fake news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/7/14531262/facebook-syria-refugee-germany-selfie-angela-merkel-lawsuit|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=7 February 2017|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221090635/https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/7/14531262/facebook-syria-refugee-germany-selfie-angela-merkel-lawsuit|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Kirchner|first1=Stephanie|last2=Faiola|first2=Anthony|title=His selfie went viral for all the wrong reasons. Now this refugee is suing Facebook.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/his-selfie-went-viral-for-all-the-wrong-reasons-now-this-refugee-is-suing-facebook/2017/02/04/d280ad38-ea17-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=5 February 2017|archive-date=4 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190504040600/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/his-selfie-went-viral-for-all-the-wrong-reasons-now-this-refugee-is-suing-facebook/2017/02/04/d280ad38-ea17-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|url-status=live}} but the case was dismissed, with a spokesperson of the court claiming that Facebook had no involvement and instead accused the userbase of being responsible.{{cite news|last1=Dearden|first1=Lizzie|title=Syrian refugee falsely labelled terrorist on Facebook loses case|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/syrian-refugee-facebook-fake-news-court-case-lawsuit-terrorist-germany-anas-modamani-verdict-merkel-selfie-a7615981.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Independent|date=7 March 2017|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221090635/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/syrian-refugee-facebook-fake-news-court-case-lawsuit-terrorist-germany-anas-modamani-verdict-merkel-selfie-a7615981.html|url-status=live}}

|Godwin v. Facebook, Inc.

|On January 19, 2018, Debbie Godwin filed a lawsuit against Facebook on behalf of her family after the shooting of Robert Godwin Sr. was recorded and posted on Facebook by his attacker Steve Stephens, accusing Facebook of failing to act on the threats of violence posted by Stephens and only deleting the video two hours after it had been viewed and reposted millions of times.{{cite news|last1=Robertson|first1=Adi|title=Facebook sued by family of man whose killing was posted online|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16950804/facebook-robert-godwin-family-wrongful-death-lawsuit|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=30 January 2018|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221180829/https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16950804/facebook-robert-godwin-family-wrongful-death-lawsuit|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Solon|first1=Olivia|title=Family of man whose death was broadcast on Facebook sues social network|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/facebook-cleveland-robert-godwin-killed-video|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=30 January 2018|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221180829/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/facebook-cleveland-robert-godwin-killed-video|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Godwin v. Facebook, Inc.|url=https://mediaassets.news5cleveland.com/uploads/Godwin-lawsuit.pdf|publisher=WEWS-TV|access-date=21 February 2022|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221180831/https://mediaassets.news5cleveland.com/uploads/Godwin-lawsuit.pdf|url-status=live}}

|Lewis v. Facebook, Inc.

|In April 2018, Martin Lewis sued Facebook for defamation after it showed fake adverts featuring himself. Lewis argued that Facebook had failed to prevent false advertising across its platform, which had damaged Lewis' reputation. He stated that he would donate any money earned to charities.{{cite news|last1=Topham|first1=Gwyn|title=Martin Lewis sues Facebook over fake adverts with his name|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/22/martin-lewis-sues-facebook-over-fake-ads-with-his-name|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=23 April 2018|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219160809/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/22/martin-lewis-sues-facebook-over-fake-ads-with-his-name|url-status=live}} Later in January 2019, he dropped the lawsuit after Facebook agreed to donate £3 million to fund an anti-scam project with Citizens Advice and add a United Kingdom exclusive one-click reporting tool.{{cite news|last1=Hern|first1=Alex|title=Martin Lewis drops lawsuit as Facebook backs scam ads scheme|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/martin-lewis-drops-lawsuit-as-facebook-backs-scam-ads-scheme|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=23 January 2019|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219160810/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/martin-lewis-drops-lawsuit-as-facebook-backs-scam-ads-scheme|url-status=live}}

|Schrems v. Facebook, Inc.

|On May 25, 2018, various lawsuits were filed by Max Schrems against Facebook on the first day of enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation. While Facebook has rolled out new policies to comply with the GDPR, Schrems stated that they are not enough and that they force users into an "all-or-nothing choice", which violate GDPR's conditions surrounding thorough consent.{{cite news|last1=Brandom|first1=Russell|title=Facebook and Google hit with $8.8 billion in lawsuits on day one of GDPR|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe|access-date=22 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=25 May 2018|language=en|archive-date=25 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180525235251/https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe|url-status=live}}

|Scola v. Facebook, Inc.

|On September 21, 2018, former Facebook moderator Selena Scola filed a lawsuit against Facebook for failing to protect her and others from violent images, causing her to develop post-traumatic stress disorder. Scola urged Facebook to fund a program that will give moderators medical testing and monitoring, as well as psychiatric treatment.{{cite news|last1=Garcia|first1=Sandra|title=Ex-Content Moderator Sues Facebook, Saying Violent Images Caused Her PTSD|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/technology/facebook-moderator-job-ptsd-lawsuit.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The New York Times|date=25 September 2018|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221140855/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/technology/facebook-moderator-job-ptsd-lawsuit.html|url-status=live}} In May 2020, Facebook agreed to pay $52 million to current and former employees to repay them for mental health issues developed while working.{{cite news|last1=Newton|first1=Casey|title=Facebook will pay $52 million in settlement with moderators who developed PTSD on the job|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=12 May 2020|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210221020655/https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health|url-status=live}}

|King et al. v. Facebook, Inc.

|Franklin D. Azar & Associates filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on October 11, 2018, King et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-06246 (N.D. Cal 2018), which also included California, New Jersey, and Colorado Sub-Classes. The lawsuit alleged that Facebook Users’ personal and private information has been compromised and remains vulnerable due to Facebook's failure to maintain adequate security measures and a lack of timely security breach notifications.{{cite web|title=FACEBOOK (DATA BREACH)|url=https://www.fdazar.com/practice-areas/class-action/facebook-data-breach/|access-date=October 19, 2021|archive-date=October 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019195543/https://www.fdazar.com/practice-areas/class-action/facebook-data-breach/|url-status=live}}{{cite news |title=Colorado Strong Arm law firm sues Facebook, seeks compensation in latest hack attack |url=https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/15/colorado-law-firm-sues-facebook-over-hack/ |access-date=October 19, 2021 |date=October 15, 2018 |archive-date=October 19, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019195543/https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/15/colorado-law-firm-sues-facebook-over-hack/ |url-status=live }}

|LLE One and Jonathan Murdough v. Facebook Inc.

|Claimed damages arising from admittedly inaccurate Facebook statistics purporting to document a pivot to video among Facebook users.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5004295-d5cb8373-8cbb-4e81-9710-f2ccf4481b74.html Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint][https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-pivot-metrics-false.html The Big Lie Behind the “Pivot to Video”]

|District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc.

|On December 19, 2018, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Karl Racine, sued Facebook for failing to protect users' data, allowing data breaches, such as the one that exposed around half of all D.C. residents' data during the 2016 United States presidential election, to happen.{{cite news|title=AG Racine Sues Facebook for Failing to Protect Millions of Users' Data|url=https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-facebook-failing-protect-millions|access-date=22 February 2022|work=Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia|date=December 19, 2018|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222112931/https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-facebook-failing-protect-millions|url-status=live}} Later in October 2021, he said that he would add Mark Zuckerberg to the lawsuit as a defendant.{{cite news|last1=Yaffe-Bellany|first1=David|title=Zuckerberg Targeted by D.C. Attorney General in Privacy Suit|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-20/zuckerberg-targeted-by-d-c-attorney-general-in-facebook-lawsuit|access-date=16 March 2022|work=Bloomberg|date=20 October 2021}}

On 15 February 2022, Racine's lawyers stated that Facebook had not arranged Zuckerberg's deposition, despite a court judge allowing it in a January 10 order. On February 1, Facebook's lawyers requested the judge to block Zuckerberg's deposition, arguing that he does not have any information to give and that the District's efforts were an attempt at harassment. A filing by the District urged the judge to allow the deposition to proceed,{{cite news|last1=Scarcella|first1=Mike|title=D.C. prosecutor presses bid to question Facebook CEO in data privacy lawsuit|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/dc-prosecutor-presses-bid-question-facebook-ceo-data-privacy-lawsuit-2022-02-22|access-date=23 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=22 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=23 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220223000802/https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/dc-prosecutor-presses-bid-question-facebook-ceo-data-privacy-lawsuit-2022-02-22/|url-status=live}} which was later denied by the judge, calling the attempt "frankly annoying."{{cite news|last1=Larson|first1=Erik|title=Zuckerberg Deposition Blocked by Judge in D.C. Privacy Case (2)|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/zuckerberg-deposition-blocked-by-judge-in-d-c-privacy-case-2|date=March 15, 2022|access-date=16 March 2022|work=Bloomberg Law|language=en}}

|HUD v. Facebook, Inc.

|On March 28, 2019, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sued Facebook for engaging in housing discrimination by letting advertisers restrict who can see their ads based on certain characteristics, thus violating the federal Fair Housing Act. Ben Carson compared the limitations to being "just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face." Facebook claimed that they just had limited the advertisers' ability to restrict their ads.{{cite news|last1=Benner|first1=Katie|last2=Thrush|first2=Glenn|last3=Isaac|first3=Mike|title=Facebook Engages in Housing Discrimination With Its Ad Practices, U.S. Says|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/facebook-housing-discrimination.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The New York Times|date=28 March 2019|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221123450/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/facebook-housing-discrimination.html|url-status=live}} In June of 2022, the lawsuit was settled, with Facebook agreeing to develop a new system for housing ads and pay $115,000 in penalties, the maximum penalty under the FHA.{{Cite web |title=Meta settles lawsuit with Justice Department over ad-serving algorithms |url=https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/21/meta-settles-lawsuit-with-justice-department-over-ad-serving-algorithms/ |access-date=2022-06-22 |website=TechCrunch |language=en-US}}

|Italy v. Facebook, Inc.

|In June 2019, Italy's privacy watchdog sued Facebook $1.13 million after it had determined that 57 Italians downloaded the thisisyourdigitallife app via a Facebook login, allowing the app to acquire the data of around 215,000 Italian users.{{cite news|title=Italy's privacy watchdog fines Facebook 1 million euros|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/italys-privacy-watchdog-fines-facebook-million-euros-64019395|access-date=22 February 2022|work=ABC News|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222184845/https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/italys-privacy-watchdog-fines-facebook-million-euros-64019395|url-status=live}}

|Germany v. Facebook, Inc.

|On July 2, 2019, German authorities filed a lawsuit against Facebook, with Germany's Federal Office of Justice stating that Facebook only took complaints from certain categories, undermining the violations on its platform. Facebook was fined €2 million for violating Germany's law on internet transparency.{{cite news|last1=Escritt|first1=Thomas|title=Germany fines Facebook for under-reporting complaints|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany-fine-idUSKCN1TX1IC|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=2 July 2019|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221153648/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany-fine-idUSKCN1TX1IC|url-status=live}}

|Hepp v. Facebook, Inc. et al.

|On September 4, 2019, Karen Hepp filed a lawsuit against Facebook as her image was used inappropriately, violating her right of publicity and damaging her reputation, adding that around two years ago, she found out that a photo took from a security camera in a convenience store appeared online in unwanted contexts, including on a Facebook ad promoting supposed meetups with "single women". The lawsuit requested that the defendants take down any instances of her photograph.{{cite news|last1=Robertson|first1=Adi|title=News anchor sues Facebook and Reddit after a convenience store creepshot showed up in dating ads|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/6/20853408/karen-hepp-facebook-reddit-imgur-giphy-convenience-store-photo-dating-ad-lawsuit|access-date=22 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=6 September 2019|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222155932/https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/6/20853408/karen-hepp-facebook-reddit-imgur-giphy-convenience-store-photo-dating-ad-lawsuit|url-status=live}}

|Turkey v. Facebook, Inc.

|On October 3, 2019, the Turkish Data Protection Authority sued Facebook for $282,000 after the data of around 281,000 Turkish users was leaked by a data breach, stating that Facebook had violated data protection laws.{{cite news|title=Turkey fines Facebook $282,000 over privacy breach|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-lawsuit-privacy-turkey-idUSKBN1WI0LJ|access-date=22 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=3 October 2019|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222184235/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-lawsuit-privacy-turkey-idUSKBN1WI0LJ|url-status=live}}

|Finco Services, Inc. v. Facebook, Calibra, JLV, Character SF

|On October 10, 2019, Finco Services sued Facebook, alongside its subsidiaries Calibra and JLV, and Character SF, Calibra's logo designer, claiming that the logo for Calibra looked similar to their logo. According to the lawsuit, Character apparently designed both logos.{{cite news|last1=Peters|first1=Jay|title=Facebook sued over Calibra’s look-alike logo|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/11/20910182/facebook-sued-calibra-lookalike-logo-current-startup-bank-trademark-infringement|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=11 October 2019|language=en|archive-date=20 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220034929/https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/11/20910182/facebook-sued-calibra-lookalike-logo-current-startup-bank-trademark-infringement|url-status=live}}

|NSO Group Technologies, Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.

|On November 26, 2019, NSO Group filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that they had blocked their private Facebook and Instagram accounts unfairly, stating that it was done abruptly without any prior notice. Facebook said in a statement that it had disabled accounts that were associated with a cyber attack performed against them by NSO Group. They also stated that they had reactivated some accounts through their appeals process.{{cite news|last1=Scheer|first1=Steven|title=Workers at Israeli surveillance firm NSO sue Facebook for blocking private accounts|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-nso-lawsuit-idUSKBN1Y01RS|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=26 November 2019|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221125155/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-nso-lawsuit-idUSKBN1Y01RS|url-status=live}}

|Gray v. Facebook, Inc.

|In December 2019, Chris Gray filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that his job of scrolling through violent content caused him to develop post-traumatic stress disorder. According to court documents, Gray was required to review "approximately a thousand tickets per night", which were initially pornographic, and later content that was reported as being dangerous. Gray's lawyers stated that his work forced him to witness specific content and that there wasn't an option for moderators to hold or skip a ticket.{{cite news|last1=Hern|first1=Alex|title=Ex-Facebook worker claims disturbing content led to PTSD|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/ex-facebook-worker-claims-disturbing-content-led-to-ptsd|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=4 December 2019|language=en|archive-date=31 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211031104341/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/ex-facebook-worker-claims-disturbing-content-led-to-ptsd|url-status=live}}

|Reveal Chat, Lenddo, Cir.cl, Beehive v. Facebook

|On January 16, 2020, a lawsuit was filed against Facebook by Reveal Chat, Technology and Management Services, Cir.cl and Beehive, claiming that Facebook restricted their usage of the user data it had garnered. Yavar Bathaee, an attorney, said in a statement that "Facebook faced an existential threat from mobile apps" and that instead of responding by "competing on the merits", they had "intentionally eliminate[d] its competition".{{cite news|last1=Farivar|first1=Cyrus|title=App developers sue Facebook alleging an 'anticompetitive scheme'|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/app-developers-sue-facebook-over-alleged-anticompetitive-scheme-n1117551|access-date=21 February 2022|work=NBC News|date=January 17, 2020|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221142209/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/app-developers-sue-facebook-over-alleged-anticompetitive-scheme-n1117551|url-status=live}}

|Internal Revenue Service v. Facebook, Inc.

|{{See also|Ireland as a tax haven}}

In February 2020, the Internal Revenue Service sued Facebook for tax evasion, claiming that they had sheltered $9 billion from taxes in Ireland due to its low corporate tax rates, the central point of the case being that Facebook settled a deal with an Irish subsidiary in 2010 that allows them to shuffle money around internationally.{{cite news|last1=Peters|first1=Jay|title=Facebook sued by the IRS for $9 billion in unpaid taxes|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=19 February 2020|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221140606/https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes|url-status=live}}

|Ocegueda v. Facebook, Inc.

|In July 2020, shareholder Natalie Ocegueda filed a lawsuit against Facebook over its lack of action against Donald Trump's statement during Black Lives Matter protests. As a result, various companies retracted their ads from the platform, such as Ben & Jerry's, Unilever, Sony and Microsoft. Afterwards, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised to change the company's policies.{{cite news|last1=Smith|first1=Adam|title=Facebook shareholder sues company over 'failure on racial issues'|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-lawsuit-shareholder-racism-trump-ad-boycott-natalie-ocegueda-a9600536.html|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Independent|date=3 July 2020|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221152419/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-lawsuit-shareholder-racism-trump-ad-boycott-natalie-ocegueda-a9600536.html|url-status=live}}

|Lawsuit over Kenosha protest deaths

|In September 2020, four people filed a lawsuit against Facebook, alleging Facebook failed to remove two pages that encouraged violence against protesters. The lawsuit claimed that the Kenosha Guard and the Boogaloo Bois used Facebook as a way of garnering supporters that would help fight protesters in the protest against the Blake shooting.{{cite news|last1=Thorbecke|first1=Catherine|title=Facebook hit with lawsuit over Kenosha protest deaths|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/facebook-hit-lawsuit-kenosha-protest-deaths/story?id=73189351|access-date=21 February 2022|work=ABC News|date=September 23, 2020|language=en|archive-date=7 October 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201007093912/https://abcnews.go.com/US/facebook-hit-lawsuit-kenosha-protest-deaths/story?id=73189351|url-status=live}}

|The United States of America v. Facebook, Inc.

|On December 3, 2020, the United States sued Facebook for discriminating against Americans by temporarily hiring foreign workers, stating that they had failed to advertise around 2,600 jobs correctly and consider jobs from U.S. citizens before hiring foreign workers.{{cite news|last1=Romm|first1=Tony|last2=Hauslohner|first2=Abigail|title=DOJ sues Facebook, alleging it improperly hired foreign workers and discriminated against Americans|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/03/facebook-doj-immigration-lawsuit|access-date=21 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=December 3, 2020|archive-date=28 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128233753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/03/facebook-doj-immigration-lawsuit/|url-status=live}}

|Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms

|On December 8, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, along with 46 US states (excluding Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and South Dakota), the District of Columbia and the territory of Guam, launched an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook. The lawsuit concerns Facebook's acquisition of two competitors - Instagram and WhatsApp - and the ensuing monopolistic situation. FTC alleges that Facebook holds monopolistic power in the US social networking market and seeks to force the company to divest from Instagram and WhatsApp to break up the conglomerate.{{cite news |last1=Feiner |first1=Lauren |last2=Rodriguez |first2=Salvador |title=FTC and states sue Facebook, could force it to divest Instagram and WhatsApp |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/ftc-and-several-states-launch-antitrust-lawsuits-against-facebook.html |access-date=8 December 2020 |work=CNBC |date=8 December 2020 |archive-date=13 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201213090012/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/ftc-and-several-states-launch-antitrust-lawsuits-against-facebook.html |url-status=live }}

The lawsuit was initially dismissed in June 2021 but was launched again in an amended state in August 2021, citing Facebook's buyouts of rivals as a cause for alarm. In March 2022, the Chamber of Commerce rejected the 46 states' appeal to revive their lawsuit, citing the overly long waiting period between Facebooks's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram and the filing of the suit.{{cite news |title=U.S. Chamber sides with Facebook in antitrust appeal |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-chamber-sides-with-facebook-antitrust-appeal-2022-03-28/ |access-date=29 March 2022 |work=Reuters |date=29 March 2022 |archive-date=29 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220329043253/https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-chamber-sides-with-facebook-antitrust-appeal-2022-03-28/ |url-status=live}}

In January 2022, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that FTC has grounds to proceed with its antitrust lawsuit against Meta. With its amended lawsuit, FTC is seeking to make Meta sell its subsidiaries.{{cite news |last=Milmo |first=Dan |title=Lawsuit aiming to break up Facebook group Meta can go ahead, US court rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/12/lawsuit-aiming-to-break-up-facebook-group-meta-can-go-ahead-us-court-rules |access-date=12 January 2022 |work=The Guardian |date=12 January 2022 |archive-date=12 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220112120010/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/12/lawsuit-aiming-to-break-up-facebook-group-meta-can-go-ahead-us-court-rules |url-status=live }}

|Jukes v. Facebook, Inc.

|In February 2021, journalist Peter Jukes sued Facebook for failing to protect the data of around a million users in England and Wales, therefore violating the Data Protection Act 1998.{{cite news|title=Facebook sued for 'losing control' of users' data|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55998588|access-date=22 February 2022|work=BBC News|date=9 February 2021|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222104601/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55998588|url-status=live}}

|Russia v. Twitter, Google, Facebook, Tiktok, Telegram

|In March 2021, various cases were filed by Russia against Facebook, alongside Twitter, Google, TikTok and Telegram, after protests across Russia over the arrest of Alexei Navalny. All companies were claimed to have failed to delete posts that urged children to join the protests.{{cite news|title=Russia sues Google, Facebook, Twitter for not deleting protest content – Ifax|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-social-media-fines-idUSKBN2B1130|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=9 March 2021|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221121655/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-social-media-fines-idUSKBN2B1130|url-status=live}}

|Trump v. Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Google, Inc.

|On July 7, 2021, Donald Trump sued Facebook, alongside Twitter and Google, claiming that they "unlawfully silence conservative viewpoints". The lawsuit claimed that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected websites from being liable for content posted by users and asked a judge to invalidate it.{{cite news|last1=Lange|first1=Jason|last2=Wolfe|first2=Jan|title=Trump sues Facebook, Twitter and Google, claiming censorship|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-twitter-google-claiming-bias-2021-07-07|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=8 July 2021|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221113008/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-twitter-google-claiming-bias-2021-07-07/|url-status=live}}

|Meta Company, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

|On November 1, 2021, Meta Company sued Meta Platforms(Facebook's copyright-infringing name) for infringing their copyright by stealing their name. Prior to their name change, Facebook tried to purchase the trademark from Meta Company, but were declined multiple times. On October 20, 2021, during a phone call with Facebook, Meta Company declined the offer and were told that their rights would be respected. However, on October 28, 2021, Facebook illegally changed its name to Meta Platforms and attempted to "bury [Meta Company] by force of media".{{cite news|last1=Rousseau|first1=Jeffrey|title=Meta Company alleges Facebook infringed upon its name|url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-11-05-meta-company-alleges-facebook-infringed-on-its-name|access-date=21 February 2022|work=GamesIndustry.biz|date=November 5, 2021|language=en|archive-date=2022-02-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221100727/https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-11-05-meta-company-alleges-facebook-infringed-on-its-name|url-status=live}}{{cite web|last1=Skulic|first1=Nate|title=Facebook Stole Our Name and Livelihood|url=http://meta.company/articles/2021-11-01-00|website=Meta Company|access-date=21 February 2022|date=November 1, 2021|archive-date=2022-02-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221100729/http://meta.company/articles/2021-11-01-00|url-status=live}}

|Phhhoto, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

|On November 4, 2021, Facebook was sued by defunct app Phhhoto for allegedly copying their features and then hiding their name from search results, forcing them to go bankrupt. This came after Meta expressed interest in working with them.{{cite news|last1=Lyons|first1=Kim|title=Facebook sued by defunct photo app Phhhoto on antitrust grounds|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/5/22765116/facebook-meta-sued-defunct-photo-app-phhhoto-antitrust-out-of-business|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Verge|date=5 November 2021|language=en|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220124937/https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/5/22765116/facebook-meta-sued-defunct-photo-app-phhhoto-antitrust-out-of-business|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Leonard|first1=Mike|title=Facebook, Now Meta, Sued Over 'Scheme to Crush' Phhhoto (1)|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/facebook-now-meta-sued-for-scheme-to-crush-defunct-phhhoto|access-date=20 February 2022|work=Bloomberg|date=November 5, 2021|language=en|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220124938/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/facebook-now-meta-sued-for-scheme-to-crush-defunct-phhhoto|url-status=live}}

|The State of Ohio v. Facebook, Inc.

|On November 15, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Facebook in response to allegations brought up by whistleblower Frances Haugen for allegedly violating federal securities law by deceiving the public.{{cite news|last1=Villarreal|first1=Alexandra|title='An egregious breach of public trust': Ohio sues Meta over whistleblower revelations|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/16/ohio-sues-meta-securities-laws-deceiving-public|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=16 November 2021|language=en|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220123234/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/16/ohio-sues-meta-securities-laws-deceiving-public|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Duffy|first1=Clare|title=Ohio Attorney General sues Meta over revelations from the 'Facebook Papers'|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/15/tech/meta-facebook-ohio-lawsuit/index.html|access-date=20 February 2022|work=CNN|date=November 15, 2021|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220123234/https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/15/tech/meta-facebook-ohio-lawsuit/index.html|url-status=live}}

|Rohingya class action lawsuits

|On December 6, 2021, two class action lawsuits were filed against Facebook for $150 billion by Rohingya refugees in the United States and the United Kingdom as the company failed to stop the spread of hate speech and misinformation relating to the Rohingya genocide on their platforms.{{cite news|last1=Cheng|first1=Amy|title=Rohingya refugees sue Facebook for $150 billion, alleging it helped perpetuate genocide in Myanmar|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/07/facebook-rohingya-genocide-refugees-lawsuit|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=December 7, 2021|archive-date=19 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211219022837/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/07/facebook-rohingya-genocide-refugees-lawsuit/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Milmo|first1=Dan|title=Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=6 December 2021|language=en|archive-date=20 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220072207/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence|url-status=live}}

|Tagansky District Court v. Facebook, Inc.

|On December 24, 2021, Russian court Tagansky District Court fined Facebook for $27 million after the company declined to remove unspecified banned content. The fine was reportedly tied to the company's annual revenue in the country.{{cite news|last1=Khurshudyan|first1=Isabelle|title=Russia fines Google $100 million, and Facebook $27 million, over 'failure to remove banned content'|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/24/google-russia-fine-banned-content|access-date=22 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=December 24, 2021|archive-date=18 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118054833/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/24/google-russia-fine-banned-content/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Russian court slaps Google, Meta with massive fines|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/meta-google-moscow-facebook-alexei-navalny-b1982107.html|access-date=22 February 2022|work=The Independent|date=24 December 2021|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222094742/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/meta-google-moscow-facebook-alexei-navalny-b1982107.html|url-status=live}}

|Underwood v. Facebook, Inc.

|On January 6, 2022, Angela Underwood Jacobs, the sister of Dave Patrick Underwood, a federal officer who was killed in a drive-by shooting during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. in California Superior Court. Jacobs alleges that Facebook promoted "extremist content" and helped connect individuals who "planned to engage in acts of violence against federal law enforcement officers", citing the boogaloo movement as one of the examples.{{cite web |last=Biron |first=Bethany |title=Facebook hit with lawsuit for allegedly 'promoting extremist content' within far-right 'boogaloo' groups tied to the murder of a federal officer |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lawsuit-extremist-far-right-boogaloo-content-tied-to-murder-2022-1 |access-date=9 January 2022 |work=Business Insider |date=8 January 2022 |archive-date=9 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220109053711/https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lawsuit-extremist-far-right-boogaloo-content-tied-to-murder-2022-1 |url-status=live }}

|Gormsen v. Facebook, Inc.

|In January 2022, Liza Gormsen sued Facebook for £2.3 billion for allegedly violating the 1998 Competition Act by exploiting the data of users in the United Kingdom from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019.{{cite news|last1=Milmo|first1=Dan|title=Meta sued for £2.3bn over claim Facebook users in UK were exploited|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/14/meta-sued-for-23bn-over-claim-facebook-users-in-uk-were-exploited|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=14 January 2022|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219193626/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/14/meta-sued-for-23bn-over-claim-facebook-users-in-uk-were-exploited|url-status=live}}

|Rodriguez v. Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc.

|On January 20, 2022, Tammy Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Snap Inc in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that both companies contributed to her 11-year-old daughter Selena Rodriguez's addiction, eventually leading to her suicide on July 21, 2021. Rodriguez claimed that her daughter's death was caused by her excessive use of social media, namely Instagram and Snapchat, stating that both Meta and Snap have spent billions of dollars to make their products as harmful as possible to their users' mental health.{{cite news|last1=Reichert|first1=Corinne|title=Meta and Snap sued over allegedly contributing to 11-year-old's suicide|url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/meta-and-snap-sued-over-allegedly-contributing-to-11-year-olds-suicide|access-date=19 February 2022|work=CNET|date=January 21, 2022|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219231558/https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/meta-and-snap-sued-over-allegedly-contributing-to-11-year-olds-suicide/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Massie|first1=Graeme|title=Mother sues Facebook and Snapchat over 11-year-old daughter's suicide|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-snapchat-selena-rodriguez-suicide-b2008296.html|access-date=19 February 2022|work=The Independent|date=5 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219153411/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-snapchat-selena-rodriguez-suicide-b2008296.html|url-status=live}}

|Forrest v. Facebook, Inc.

|On February 3, 2022, Australian businessman Andrew Forrest launched a lawsuit against Facebook, alleging that it violated anti-money laundering laws and that its platform is used to scam Australians. Forrest stated that he was taking action against clickbait adverts, which have begun appearing since March 2019,{{cite news|last1=Taylor|first1=Josh|title=Facebook rejects Andrew Forrest's legal claim it should be liable for cryptocurrency scam ads|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/22/facebook-rejects-andrew-forrests-legal-claim-it-should-be-liable-for-cryptocurrency-scam-ads|access-date=22 February 2022|work=The Guardian|date=22 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=22 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222051220/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/22/facebook-rejects-andrew-forrests-legal-claim-it-should-be-liable-for-cryptocurrency-scam-ads|url-status=live}} to prevent people from losing money, namely scams that use his likeness to advertise cryptocurrency schemes. Prior to the lawsuit, Forrest has requested Facebook to take down ads that use his image on multiple occasions, to no avail.{{cite news|last1=Jose|first1=Renju|title=Australian mining billionaire files lawsuit against Facebook over scam ads|url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mining-billionaire-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-scam-ads-2022-02-03|access-date=21 February 2022|work=Reuters|date=3 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=21 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221190244/https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mining-billionaire-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-scam-ads-2022-02-03/|url-status=live}}

Facebook claimed that since Forrest has registered an account, he has agreed to their terms of conditions, therefore protecting them from liability.{{R|:metaRejectsForrestsClaim}}

|The State of Texas v. Facebook, Inc.

|On February 14, 2022, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued Facebook for violating the state privacy laws from 2010 to late 2021 by collecting biometric data of their Facebook and Instagram users without their consent and then sharing it with third parties and not deleting it in time, despite Meta announcing that it would delete all data it had collected after shutting down its facial recognition system in 2020. The court was asked to fine Facebook $25,000 for each violation of the Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) and $10,000 for each violation of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).{{cite news|last1=Timsit|first1=Annabelle|title=Texas sues Facebook parent Meta over use of facial recognition, alleging privacy violations|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/15/texas-lawsuit-facebook-meta-privacy-facial-recognition|access-date=16 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=15 February 2022|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215143405/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/15/texas-lawsuit-facebook-meta-privacy-facial-recognition/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Calkins|first1=Laurel|title=Texas Sues Meta Over Facebook’s Dropped Facial-Recognition Tech|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/texas-sues-meta-over-facebook-s-dropped-facial-recognition-tech|access-date=16 February 2022|work=Bloomberg|date=14 February 2022|archive-date=16 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220216024234/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/texas-sues-meta-over-facebook-s-dropped-facial-recognition-tech|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Smith|first1=Adam|title=Facebook illegally scanned people’s faces and fingers, Texas lawsuit alleges|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/facebook-meta-scan-face-fingerprint-texas-b2015331.html|access-date=16 February 2022|work=The Independent|date=15 February 2022|language=en|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215133741/http://www.independent.co.uk/tech/facebook-meta-scan-face-fingerprint-texas-b2015331.html|url-status=live}} In July 2024, Meta agreed to pay Texas $1.4 billion to settle the lawsuit.{{Cite web |last=Motley |first=Dante |date=2024-07-30 |title=Meta to pay Texas $1.4 billion for using facial recognition technology without users’ permission |url=https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-biometric-data-settlement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002538/https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-biometric-data-settlement/ |archive-date=2024-08-15 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=The Texas Tribune |language=en}}

|Davis v. Renaissance Charter School at Pines, Facebook, Inc.

|On November 19, 2021, 13-year-old Nia Whims was arrested and put in a juvenile detention center after the police thought she sent a bomb threat to her school Renaissance Charter School at Pines and death threats to a student via Instagram. Later on February 10, 2022, the police found out that another student was behind the account and released Whims. On February 15, 2022, her mother Lezlie-Ann Davis filed a lawsuit against Renaissance Charter School at Pines and Facebook for failing to protect her daughter, with further plans to add Pembroke Pines Police Department to the lawsuit.{{cite news|last1=Paybarah|first1=Azi|title=Florida Girl Arrested Over Threats She Didn’t Make Sues Her School|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/florida-lawsuit-nia-whims.html|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The New York Times|date=17 February 2022|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219144131/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/florida-lawsuit-nia-whims.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Iati|first1=Marisa|title=A bullied teen was framed for threatening a school on Instagram and ended up in jail for 11 days, lawsuit says|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/17/teenager-instagram-school-threats|access-date=20 February 2022|work=The Washington Post|date=February 17, 2022|archive-date=18 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218094017/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/17/teenager-instagram-school-threats/|url-status=live}}

|Dangaard et al. v. Instagram, LLC et al.

|On February 22, 2022, a lawsuit on behalf of three adult entertainers was filed against several companies, including Meta Platforms, for allegedly blacklisting their content under the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism's (GIFCT) database as they were advertising rival companies of OnlyFans, despite not containing any terrorist themes. Meta was involved as they were believed to have been conspiring with OnlyFans.{{cite web|title=Dangaard et al. v. Instagram, LLC et al. - 3:22-cv-01101|url=https://www.classaction.org/media/dangaard-et-al-v-instagram-llc-et-al.pdf|publisher=ClassAction.org|access-date=25 February 2022|archive-date=25 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220225161955/https://www.classaction.org/media/dangaard-et-al-v-instagram-llc-et-al.pdf|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Titheradge|first1=Noel|title=Facebook accused of blacklisting OnlyFans' rivals|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60497274|access-date=25 February 2022|work=BBC News|date=24 February 2022|archive-date=25 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220225010509/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60497274|url-status=live}}

|Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust v. Facebook Inc. et al.

|On March 8, 2022, Labaton Sucharow filed a class action lawsuit against Meta, on behalf of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust, for allegedly falsely reassuring its investors that the impacts of Apple's privacy tweaks to iPhone software "were manageable", only to later report a loss of $10 billion in advertising revenue as a result of the changes. The lawsuit also states that Meta's executives failed to inform investors of Meta's failed attempts at offsetting any financial hits.{{cite news|last1=Nayak|first1=Malathi|title=Meta Investor Sues Over Apple Privacy Update's Impact on Ads|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-09/meta-accused-of-failing-to-warn-investors-of-apple-privacy-tweak|access-date=12 March 2022|work=Bloomberg|date=9 March 2022}}{{cite web|title=Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Certain Executives|url=https://www.labaton.com/labaton-sucharow-llp-files-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-meta-platforms-inc.-and-certain-executives|website=Labaton Sucharow|access-date=12 March 2022|language=en|date=March 8, 2022}}

|Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Facebook Inc.

|On March 18, 2022, Australian watchdog Australian Competition & Consumer Commission sued Meta over claims of it either helping or failing to stop false cryptocurrency advertisements appearing on Facebook, which featured Australian public figures.{{cite news|last1=Jose|first1=Renju|title=Australian watchdog sues Facebook-owner Meta over scam advertisements|url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/australia-watchdog-sues-facebook-owner-meta-over-false-cryptocurrency-ads-2022-03-17|access-date=18 March 2022|work=Reuters|date=18 March 2022|language=en}}{{cite news|last1=Kwan|first1=Campbell|title=Meta sued for allegedly displaying scam ads using Australian public figures|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/meta-sued-for-allegedly-displaying-scam-ads-using-australian-public-figures/|access-date=18 March 2022|work=ZDNet|date=March 18, 2022|language=en}}

|Class Action v. Facebook Inc.

|Eight complaints in courthouses across the U.S. allege that Meta Inc. aggressively targeted youth with exposure to its platforms Facebook, Instagram, leading to eating and sleep disorders, and attempted and actual suicides.{{Cite web |date=2022-06-09 |title=Facebook, now Meta, Hit With 8 Suits Claiming Its Algorithms Hook Youth and Ruin Their Lives |url=https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/facebook-now-meta-hit-with-8-suits-claiming-its-algorithms-hook-youth-and-ruin-their-lives-71654712416237.html |access-date=2022-06-09 |website=HT Tech |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Social Media |url=https://www.beasleyallen.com/social-media/ |access-date=2022-06-09 |website=Beasley Allen |language=en-US}}

|Class Action v. Facebook Inc.

|In June 2022, an anonymous "John Doe" plaintiff in the Northern District of California filed a putative class action against Facebook, alleging that the platform violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) by collecting patient-sensitive data without consent. The lawsuit alleged that at least 664 hospitals or medical providers deployed the Meta Pixel to unlawfully gain access to patient medical information.{{Cite web |date=2022-06-22 |title=Meta Sued For Violating Patient Privacy, Scraping Health Data From Hospitals |url=https://healthitsecurity.com/news/meta-sued-for-violating-patient-privacy-scraping-health-data-from-hospitals |access-date=2022-06-22 |website=HealthITSecurity |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=June 21, 2022 |first=Marianne |last=Kolbasuk McGee |title=Lawsuit: Facebook Is Collecting Patient Data of 'Millions' |url=https://www.govinfosecurity.com/lawsuit-facebook-collecting-patient-data-millions-a-19424 |access-date=2022-06-22 |website=www.govinfosecurity.com |language=en}}

|United States v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|On June 21, 2022, the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit in the Southern New York U.S. District Court alleging that the company's Lookalike audience tool for targeted advertising on Facebook discriminates against users based on their race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin in its distribution of housing advertisements in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Meta Platforms settled with the Justice Department on the same day the lawsuit was filed.{{cite news|last=Feiner|first=Lauren|date=June 21, 2022|title=DOJ settles lawsuit with Facebook over allegedly discriminatory housing advertising|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/21/doj-settles-with-facebook-over-allegedly-discriminatory-housing-ads.html|access-date=July 26, 2022}}{{cite news|last1=Nix|first1=Naomi|last2=Dwoskin|first2=Elizabeth|date=June 21, 2022|title=Justice Department and Meta settle landmark housing discrimination case|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/21/facebook-doj-discriminatory-housing-ads/|access-date=July 26, 2022}}{{cite press release|title=United States Attorney Resolves Groundbreaking Suit Against Meta Platforms, Inc., Formerly Known As Facebook, To Address Discriminatory Advertising For Housing|date=June 21, 2022|publisher=U.S. Justice Department|url=https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/united-states-attorney-resolves-groundbreaking-suit-against-meta-platforms-inc-formerly|access-date=July 26, 2022}}

|Class Action v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|In July 2022, a former Army vet and member of Facebook's escalation team sued Facebook. The lawsuit claimed that Facebook introduced a tool in 2019 to allow staff access to deleted Messenger data and that this data was sometimes shared with law enforcement.{{Cite web |last=Hamilton |first=Isobel Asher |title=An Air Force vet who worked at Facebook is suing the company saying it accessed deleted user data and shared it with law enforcement |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-facebook-staffer-airforce-vet-accessed-deleted-user-data-lawsuit-2022-7 |access-date=2022-07-08 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}}

|META v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|In July 2022, a company called META (full name METAx LLC) sued Meta Platforms for allegedly stealing its brand name.{{Cite web |last=Brandom |first=Russell |date=2022-07-19 |title=A company called Meta is suing Meta for naming itself Meta |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/19/23270164/meta-augmented-reality-facebook-lawsuit |access-date=2022-07-26 |website=The Verge |language=en}}

|Epidemic Sound v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|In July 2022, Epidemic Sound, a Swedish music company, filed an infringement lawsuit against Facebook and Meta for $142 million. The lawsuit claims that Meta hosts 94% of Epidemic's music in its own library without licensing or authorization. Epidemic alleged that Facebook commits upwards of 80,000 copyright infractions per day.{{Cite web |last=Schneider |first=Jaron |date=2022-07-25 |title=Epidemic Sound Sues Meta for 'Rampant' Theft of its Music Tracks |url=https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/epidemic-sound-sues-meta-for-rampant-theft-of-its-music-tracks/ |access-date=2022-07-26 |website=PetaPixel |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2022-07-22 |title=Epidemic Sound hits Meta with $142m lawsuit for ‘rampant infringement’ of its music on Facebook and Instagram |url=https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/epidemic-sound-hits-meta-with-142m-lawsuit-for-rampant-infringement-of-its-music-on-facebook-and-instagram/ |access-date=2022-07-26 |website=Music Business Worldwide |language=en-US}}

|Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|On July 27, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Meta Platforms in the Northern California U.S. District Court requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block its acquisition of Within Unlimited under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.{{cite news|last=Feiner|first=Lauren|date=July 27, 2022|title=FTC sues to block Facebook owner Meta from buying VR fitness app maker|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/ftc-sues-to-block-facebook-owner-meta-from-buying-vr-fitness-app-maker.html|access-date=July 29, 2022}}{{cite news|last=Feiner|first=Lauren|date=July 27, 2022|title=Facebook lawsuit delivers on FTC chair Lina Khan's progressive agenda|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/facebook-lawsuit-delivers-on-ftc-chair-lina-khans-progressive-agenda.html|access-date=July 29, 2022}}{{cite report|title=FTC Seeks to Block Virtual Reality Giant Meta's Acquisition of Popular App Creator Within|date=July 27, 2022|publisher=Federal Trade Commission|url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-seeks-block-virtual-reality-giant-metas-acquisition-popular-app-creator-within|access-date=July 29, 2022}}{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-seeks-to-block-meta-platforms-from-acquiring-within-unlimited-11658946464?mod=article_inline|title=FTC Seeks to Block Meta Platforms From Acquiring Within Unlimited|website=Wall Street Journal|date=July 27, 2022|author=Kathryn Hardison|access-date=September 8, 2022}} In February 2023, Judge Edward Davila denied the FTC's request for an injunction,{{cite news|last=Feiner|first=Lauren|date=February 1, 2023|title=Meta acquisition of Within reportedly approved by court in loss for FTC|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/01/ftc-loses-attempt-to-block-meta-acquisition-of-within.html|access-date=July 29, 2023}}{{cite news|last1=Michaels|first1=Dave|last2=Wolfe|first2=Jan|date=February 1, 2023|title=FTC Loses Antitrust Challenge to Facebook Parent Meta|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-loses-antitrust-challenge-to-facebook-parent-meta-11675272525|access-date=July 29, 2023}} while the FTC announced that it would cancel an administrative proceeding against the acquisition.{{cite news|last=Wolfe|first=Jan|date=February 24, 2023|title=FTC Abandons Challenge to Meta's Acquisition of Virtual-Reality Startup|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-abandons-challenge-to-metas-acquisition-of-virtual-reality-startup-6ee5e767|access-date=July 29, 2023}}

|Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|On September 06, it was announced that Irish regulators have fined Instagram €405m for failing to protect and violating children's privacy. This came after it was discovered that children users who switched to business accounts had their data, such as phone numbers and email addresses, public.{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62800884 | title=Instagram fined €405m over children's data privacy | publisher=BBC News |access-date=2022-09-06 }}

|Metacapital Management v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|May 10, 2024, it was announced that Mata Capital Management and Meta Platforms had resolved the trademark issue and agreed to a settlement in principle. Metacapital Management has been using the name since 2001 and Meta Platforms was the new rebranded name from Facebook in 2021.{{Cite web |last=Brittain |first=Blake |date=May 10, 2024 |title=Meta settles trademark lawsuit brought by investment firm Metacapital |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/meta-settles-trademark-lawsuit-brought-by-investment-firm-metacapital-2024-05-10/}}

|Rajaram v. Meta Platforms Inc.

|Purushothaman Rajaram, a naturalized United States citizen, alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc., refused to hire him because it prefers to hire noncitizens holding H1B visas to whom it can pay lower wages. The lawsuit was originally filed on June 27, 2024.{{Cite web |title=RAJARAM V. META PLATFORMS, INC., No. 22-16870 (9th Cir. 2024) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-16870/22-16870-2024-06-27.html |access-date=2025-03-02 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}

In February 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco said three U.S. citizens (including Rajaram) who accused Meta of refusing to hire them though they were qualified may pursue a proposed class action. Beeler had dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit, which named only Rajaram as a plaintiff, in November 2022.{{Cite web |last=Stempel |first=Jonathan |date=February 25, 2025 |title=Meta must face lawsuit claiming it prefers cheaper foreign workers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/meta-must-face-lawsuit-claiming-it-prefers-cheaper-foreign-workers-2025-02-25/ |access-date=March 3, 2025 |website=Reuters}}