50 ms·
> It's not clear if Facebook explicitly knew at the time that the ad targets didn't meet the criteria, or if Facebook's targeting data was simply incorrect for
by scott00 6y ago
> It's not clear if Facebook explicitly knew at the time that the ad targets didn't meet the criteria, or if Facebook's targeting data was simply incorrect for those who were targeted.
The plaintiffs don't care, nor should they. When I go to a restaurant and order a hamburger, if the server brings me a tuna melt I send it back. It doesn't matter why the server brought me a tuna melt. Facebook is essentially saying that even though they wrote hamburger on the menu, and accepted my order for a hamburger, I should have known they meant a 41% chance of a hamburger and a 59% chance of something else because taped underneath my seat is a 15,000 word Restaurant Use Agreement printed on microfiche.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoWe should give some amount of acceptance to the argument that modern contractual agreements are too complex for individuals to read and understand fully. But this is entirely unacceptable as an argument from one business buying services from another business. It’s not the “fine print”, it’s the contract. If the plaintiff’s argument amounts to “I didn’t read the contract.” they will rightly be laughed out of court.
- andylynch 6y agoNot necessarily. Given the scale of firms like Facebook there's a case for client categorisation like financial firms do, with additional duties and protections in play when dealing when with less sophsticated users eg. small merchants. Even beyond this mis-selling does lead to losing lawsuits despite what is attempted in fine print.