7 ms·

Meta sued for £2.3bn over claim Facebook users in UK were exploited

142 points by CTOSian 5y ago

collaborative 5y ago
I think the issue is the amount of personal data users give to FB. It's one thing to accept a user agreement on a set of data (name, age, etc) but a different one to put your personal life under their microscope and let them monetize it via ads
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
WhyNotHugo 5y ago
That sounds like a lot of money, but that's just £52.27 per person. Not really much money when you put it into perspective.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kmetan 5y ago
If I count this correctly, the damage is 0.9 £ per person per month. So this is what the claimant thinks should be an average and fair monthly compensation for being a FB user for that time.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  Approximately what I get too. 2.3 billion GBP. 44 million people. From October 1st to December 31st is 3 months. Followed by all of 2016 through all of 2019, so 4 times 12 months. 51 months total. ((2.3 * 10^9)/(44 * 10^6))/51 Comes out to about 1.02 GBP per person per month
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Meanwhile, Facebook's ARPU in Europe is ~$50/user/year [1], so they're roughly $40 ahead per claimant after this lawsuit. Just a cost of doing business... [1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4410715-facebook-is-running-circles-around-everyone-arpu https://seekingalpha.com/article/4410715-facebook-is-running...
  - moonchrome 5y ago
    Revenue is not the same as profit, from the source you quoted the ARPU in Europe for 2016 (period lawsuit starts) is half of what it is in 2020, also it's closer to 15$ since GBP is worth more than USD. Highly doubt this would be in the "cost of doing business category"
simonh 5y ago
I think there's a tradeoff we make when using these services for free, that they are monetising it in certain ways. I think the value I get back from Google in Gmail, Docs, Youtube and a few other services is sufficient that I'm willing to accept a certain amount of monetisation on their part, though I use ad blockers. With facebook I think the value is lower so I barely use my Facebook account and stay logged out of it most of the time. I don't really see the merit of this case though. They're not alleging that facebook broke any data protection laws, for the purposes of this case, just that users 'aren't properly compensated'. I'm not sure how you'd determine that though, a lot of people use Facebook heavily, and presumably they value the service. Is it really up to a court to decide how much they value it? Users would get £50 each from this case, presumably for many years of use to this point on average, so this would be a few pence per week of their usage. If the lawyers bringing the case think that's all the user data is worth, that seems a small price to pay for most users of the service. It just doesn't add up.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  > I think the value I get back from Google in Gmail, Docs, Youtube and a few other services is sufficient that I'm willing to accept a certain amount of monetisation on their part, though I use ad blockers. If you're blocking ads and not paying for premium then it's more that you're taking without giving. Which incentives them to pry harder for whatever they can glean from your usage, and show more ads to non-blockers.
- killerpopiller 5y ago
  this was before FB manipulated users with lies and incited hate to vote for corrupt politicians and threatening democratic processes
  - gruez 5y ago
    How is this relevant to the parent comment? Is not compensating users fine unless you "manipulated users with lies and incited hate to vote for corrupt politicians and threatening democratic processes"? Feels like the parent comment is talking about the specifics of the lawsuit, and you're just interjecting with "yeah but they're still bad".
theginger 5y ago
I don't know how this law firm acquired it's right to represent every Facebook user in the UK, I had a choice to sign up to Facebook, all be it personally a begrudging one it was at least a choice. I seem to have no choice about this company suiting meta claiming to be on my behalf.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  Well, you don't get any money from this so.
  - eru 5y ago
    But it costs Facebook money that they could be using to develop features that the commenter wanted?
    - wahnfrieden 5y ago
      legal costs aren’t pulled from r&d
      - eru 5y ago
        Money is fungible.
      - xboxnolifes 5y ago
        indirectly they are.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  Don't worry, these class-action type suits never succeed in UK. So when this fails it will make it harder for groups in other countries to pursue the same claim.
  - eru 5y ago
    > So when this fails it will make it harder for groups in other countries to pursue the same claim. At least in practice, even if not in theory.
Dave3of5 5y ago
Hmmm seems low but how likely is this to actually go against FB. Seems they have many of these lawsuits against them and they always manage to wriggle out of them.
kryogen1c 5y ago
> A Meta spokesperson said: “People access our service for free. They choose our services because we deliver value for them and they have meaningful control of what information they share on Meta’s platforms and who with LOL. lawyer speak statement of the century. you could always just kill yourself - you have definite and permanent control of your data. i am the last generation. i grew up outside but got a computer and cell phone in my teenage years. it truly saddens me that people think social media is a requirement for living. just dont do it, and dont let your kids do it.
- lopis 5y ago
  You don't need a facebook account to be tracked and to have a profile made of you. All your contacts have uploaded your contact information (Name + Phone Number) to whatsapp, facebook and instagram among others without your consent. With your first sentence I thought you realized this much, but then your second one doesn't make sense. Yes this response is purely lawyer speak and PR exactly because you don't control your data. Everyone on the Internet wants as much data as they can possibly grab.
- thrwaway9871 5y ago
  The biggest problem is that politicians use and legitimize social networks. The fact that fb/google etc. have detailed profiles on all world leaders and none of them care because in return they get to farm likes and get their tweets featured in media speaks volumes on how much governments really care about national security or even general privacy.
  - eru 5y ago
    To be honest, for politicians and other public figures, Facebook (and Google etc) is no worse and probably better than the traditional paparazzi or yellow press.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      Paparazzis don't generally stalk what you do online in private. Facebook has embedded spyware in most mainstream websites & apps that stalks you all the time.
civilized 5y ago
To put things into perspective: this is about one month of net income (profit) for Meta.
- Angostura 5y ago
  That's enough to make them sit up and take notice, then.
iqanq 5y ago
I sign up to Facebook, which costs them money (storage costs, network traffic, CPU, etc) and in exchange they make money off me by showing me ads. How is that unfair? It would be like saying it is unfair that meat I buy in the supermarket costs the supermarket less than they charge me.
- FledNanders 5y ago
  > I sign up to Facebook, which costs them money (storage costs, network traffic, CPU, etc) and in exchange they make money off me by showing me ads How would you explain the fact that police forces, private investigators, credit bureaus, stalkers and intelligence agencies love Facebook if all the company is doing is "showing me ads"? My point is that you're leaving out the most valuable/terrifying thing that this company does: creating incredibly detailed profiles of nearly every person on the planet including their likes, dislikes, relationships, private thoughts and behavioral patterns. We may be powerless to change it because developers are easily bribed with FAANG salaries and people generally like their stock portfolios but let's at least be honest about it.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Advertising isn’t the problem, the processing of data to target those adverts is the problem. That said, given how often they insist on showing me (literally) revolutionary marxist content no matter how often I click “Show me less of this” — and from the same specific groups no matter how often I click “Never show me ‘Demexit Memes For Green Teens’” (I’m not a teen, I can’t exit the Democrat party because I’m not an American and can’t join in the first place, Brexit riffs give me a negative affect[0], and while I am vaguely green-ish at least in regards to UK politics I feel negatively about the USA Green Party) — I don’t think they’re even very good at using this data for targeting content. > It would be like saying it is unfair that meat I buy in the supermarket costs the supermarket less than they charge me. Something about buying Manhattan island for some beads comes to mind, although the actual history behind that meme is rather more interesting: https://knowledgenuts.com/native-americans-didnt-sell-manhattan-for-24-of-beads/ https://knowledgenuts.com/native-americans-didnt-sell-manhat... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology)
- 5y ago
civilized 5y ago
I get that Meta/FB is the company/service everyone loves to hate these days, but come on, hate it for the right reason: the product sucks and makes you a worse human being. It's like a drug. Suing them for a small fraction of their profits based on fashionable but flimsy legal theories is boring, and the outcome is always the same. Designating social media as a Controlled Substance would be insane, but it'd at least be apropos.
- eru 5y ago
  Well, the whole idea of Controlled Substances bans hasn't really worked out for pharmaceutical drugs either..
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
naomeux 5y ago
You can't expect to use their products for free without expecting for any some kind of return, right?
eterevsky 5y ago
It sounds extremely far-fetched. First of all, it's difficult to put a price on the user data. And even if you do by looking at how much money it's possible to earn via targeted advertising, you'll probably end up with a relatively low number, perhaps on the order of $10 per month.
ectopod 5y ago
In the unlikely event this succeeds you'll need to provide address or bank details to someone (most likely Facebook) in order to get paid. No thank you.

142 points by CTOSian 5y ago

I think the issue is the amount of personal data users give to FB. It's one thing to accept a user agreement on a set of data (name, age, etc) but a different one to put your personal life under their microscope and let them monetize it via ads

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

WhyNotHugo 5y ago

That sounds like a lot of money, but that's just £52.27 per person. Not really much money when you put it into perspective.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kmetan 5y ago

If I count this correctly, the damage is 0.9 £ per person per month. So this is what the claimant thinks should be an average and fair monthly compensation for being a FB user for that time.

codetrotter 5y ago
Approximately what I get too. 2.3 billion GBP. 44 million people. From October 1st to December 31st is 3 months. Followed by all of 2016 through all of 2019, so 4 times 12 months. 51 months total. ((2.3 * 10^9)/(44 * 10^6))/51 Comes out to about 1.02 GBP per person per month
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
Meanwhile, Facebook's ARPU in Europe is ~$50/user/year [1], so they're roughly $40 ahead per claimant after this lawsuit. Just a cost of doing business... [1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4410715-facebook-is-running-circles-around-everyone-arpu https://seekingalpha.com/article/4410715-facebook-is-running...
- moonchrome 5y ago
  Revenue is not the same as profit, from the source you quoted the ARPU in Europe for 2016 (period lawsuit starts) is half of what it is in 2020, also it's closer to 15$ since GBP is worth more than USD. Highly doubt this would be in the "cost of doing business category"

simonh 5y ago

I think there's a tradeoff we make when using these services for free, that they are monetising it in certain ways. I think the value I get back from Google in Gmail, Docs, Youtube and a few other services is sufficient that I'm willing to accept a certain amount of monetisation on their part, though I use ad blockers. With facebook I think the value is lower so I barely use my Facebook account and stay logged out of it most of the time. I don't really see the merit of this case though. They're not alleging that facebook broke any data protection laws, for the purposes of this case, just that users 'aren't properly compensated'. I'm not sure how you'd determine that though, a lot of people use Facebook heavily, and presumably they value the service. Is it really up to a court to decide how much they value it? Users would get £50 each from this case, presumably for many years of use to this point on average, so this would be a few pence per week of their usage. If the lawyers bringing the case think that's all the user data is worth, that seems a small price to pay for most users of the service. It just doesn't add up.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
> I think the value I get back from Google in Gmail, Docs, Youtube and a few other services is sufficient that I'm willing to accept a certain amount of monetisation on their part, though I use ad blockers. If you're blocking ads and not paying for premium then it's more that you're taking without giving. Which incentives them to pry harder for whatever they can glean from your usage, and show more ads to non-blockers.
killerpopiller 5y ago
this was before FB manipulated users with lies and incited hate to vote for corrupt politicians and threatening democratic processes
- gruez 5y ago
  How is this relevant to the parent comment? Is not compensating users fine unless you "manipulated users with lies and incited hate to vote for corrupt politicians and threatening democratic processes"? Feels like the parent comment is talking about the specifics of the lawsuit, and you're just interjecting with "yeah but they're still bad".

theginger 5y ago

I don't know how this law firm acquired it's right to represent every Facebook user in the UK, I had a choice to sign up to Facebook, all be it personally a begrudging one it was at least a choice. I seem to have no choice about this company suiting meta claiming to be on my behalf.

lloydatkinson 5y ago
Well, you don't get any money from this so.
- eru 5y ago
  But it costs Facebook money that they could be using to develop features that the commenter wanted?
  - wahnfrieden 5y ago
    legal costs aren’t pulled from r&d
    - eru 5y ago
      Money is fungible.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      indirectly they are.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
Don't worry, these class-action type suits never succeed in UK. So when this fails it will make it harder for groups in other countries to pursue the same claim.
- eru 5y ago
  > So when this fails it will make it harder for groups in other countries to pursue the same claim. At least in practice, even if not in theory.

Dave3of5 5y ago

Hmmm seems low but how likely is this to actually go against FB. Seems they have many of these lawsuits against them and they always manage to wriggle out of them.

kryogen1c 5y ago

> A Meta spokesperson said: “People access our service for free. They choose our services because we deliver value for them and they have meaningful control of what information they share on Meta’s platforms and who with LOL. lawyer speak statement of the century. you could always just kill yourself - you have definite and permanent control of your data. i am the last generation. i grew up outside but got a computer and cell phone in my teenage years. it truly saddens me that people think social media is a requirement for living. just dont do it, and dont let your kids do it.

lopis 5y ago
You don't need a facebook account to be tracked and to have a profile made of you. All your contacts have uploaded your contact information (Name + Phone Number) to whatsapp, facebook and instagram among others without your consent. With your first sentence I thought you realized this much, but then your second one doesn't make sense. Yes this response is purely lawyer speak and PR exactly because you don't control your data. Everyone on the Internet wants as much data as they can possibly grab.
thrwaway9871 5y ago
The biggest problem is that politicians use and legitimize social networks. The fact that fb/google etc. have detailed profiles on all world leaders and none of them care because in return they get to farm likes and get their tweets featured in media speaks volumes on how much governments really care about national security or even general privacy.
- eru 5y ago
  To be honest, for politicians and other public figures, Facebook (and Google etc) is no worse and probably better than the traditional paparazzi or yellow press.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Paparazzis don't generally stalk what you do online in private. Facebook has embedded spyware in most mainstream websites & apps that stalks you all the time.

civilized 5y ago

To put things into perspective: this is about one month of net income (profit) for Meta.

Angostura 5y ago
That's enough to make them sit up and take notice, then.

iqanq 5y ago

I sign up to Facebook, which costs them money (storage costs, network traffic, CPU, etc) and in exchange they make money off me by showing me ads. How is that unfair? It would be like saying it is unfair that meat I buy in the supermarket costs the supermarket less than they charge me.

FledNanders 5y ago
> I sign up to Facebook, which costs them money (storage costs, network traffic, CPU, etc) and in exchange they make money off me by showing me ads How would you explain the fact that police forces, private investigators, credit bureaus, stalkers and intelligence agencies love Facebook if all the company is doing is "showing me ads"? My point is that you're leaving out the most valuable/terrifying thing that this company does: creating incredibly detailed profiles of nearly every person on the planet including their likes, dislikes, relationships, private thoughts and behavioral patterns. We may be powerless to change it because developers are easily bribed with FAANG salaries and people generally like their stock portfolios but let's at least be honest about it.
ben_w 5y ago
Advertising isn’t the problem, the processing of data to target those adverts is the problem. That said, given how often they insist on showing me (literally) revolutionary marxist content no matter how often I click “Show me less of this” — and from the same specific groups no matter how often I click “Never show me ‘Demexit Memes For Green Teens’” (I’m not a teen, I can’t exit the Democrat party because I’m not an American and can’t join in the first place, Brexit riffs give me a negative affect[0], and while I am vaguely green-ish at least in regards to UK politics I feel negatively about the USA Green Party) — I don’t think they’re even very good at using this data for targeting content. > It would be like saying it is unfair that meat I buy in the supermarket costs the supermarket less than they charge me. Something about buying Manhattan island for some beads comes to mind, although the actual history behind that meme is rather more interesting: https://knowledgenuts.com/native-americans-didnt-sell-manhattan-for-24-of-beads/ https://knowledgenuts.com/native-americans-didnt-sell-manhat... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology)
5y ago

civilized 5y ago

I get that Meta/FB is the company/service everyone loves to hate these days, but come on, hate it for the right reason: the product sucks and makes you a worse human being. It's like a drug. Suing them for a small fraction of their profits based on fashionable but flimsy legal theories is boring, and the outcome is always the same. Designating social media as a Controlled Substance would be insane, but it'd at least be apropos.

eru 5y ago
Well, the whole idea of Controlled Substances bans hasn't really worked out for pharmaceutical drugs either..
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

naomeux 5y ago

You can't expect to use their products for free without expecting for any some kind of return, right?

eterevsky 5y ago

It sounds extremely far-fetched. First of all, it's difficult to put a price on the user data. And even if you do by looking at how much money it's possible to earn via targeted advertising, you'll probably end up with a relatively low number, perhaps on the order of $10 per month.

ectopod 5y ago

In the unlikely event this succeeds you'll need to provide address or bank details to someone (most likely Facebook) in order to get paid. No thank you.