I'm probably reading too much into this letter. They said they couldn't act because they were a third party. If you file a complaint, any complaint, they wouldn

I'm probably reading too much into this letter. They said they couldn't act because they were a third party. If you file a complaint, any complaint, they wouldn't be. They didn't need to write a letter for something that's already corrected. I think they did because they want something they can act upon. It seems like it's spaghetti argument time, ie. throw everything against a wall and see what sticks. You could argue that the privacy of people could be violated because the "privacy" of an entity that's public shouldn't that public according to facebook. I know, the weak point is that we can't show what privacy aspect is actually violated, but then we could argue this is reason we should investigate this. If this was the BCP in my country, I could add other arguments about unfair competition and/or monopoly. But I'm not sure this is the purview of the US version of the BCP. The FTC/BCP needs to follow certain rules, but this doesn't prohibit them from saying: "Hey, we can kinda work with this sort of argument, especially if you reformulate it like this"