Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 32
1 Jack Stone Diamond Heights 1-101 Saiwai-chou 21-18 % 2 Kanagawa-ken, Chigasaki-shi
3 253-0052, Japan Phone: (81) 070-6951-2337 4 Email: email0stackjones.com
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 9 Jack Stone, c Cale'J^o. : e 10
11 COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, 13
vs 14
15 Facebook Inc. And Subsidiaries (a Consolidated Group), et al. 16
17
18 Defendant 19
20
21
22 1. Par-ties In this Complain-k
23
24 a. Plaintiff.
25 Name: Jack Stone Address: Diamond Heights 1-101 Saiwai-chou 21-18 Kanagawa- 26 ken, Chigasaki-shi 253-0052, Japan 27 Telephone: (81) 070-6951-2337
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc. r et al. Complaint Page 1 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 2 of 32
1 b. Defendants♦
2 Name: Facebook Inc. and Subsidiaries (a Consolidated Group)
3 Address: 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (1) 650-543-4800 4 Name: Mark Zuckerberg 5 Address: 1456 Edgewood Drive Palo Alto, California 94301
6 Telephone: (1) 650-543-4800
7 Name: Sheryl Sandberg Address: 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94025 8 Telephone: (1) 650-543-4800
9
10 2. Jurisdiction
11 a. The plaintiff's case belongs in federal court under 12
13 Federal Question Jurisdiction because the action involves
14 federal laws and federal rights. The federal laws involved in
15 this matter include, 1.) Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, 16 Section 701, 2.) First Amendment rights to free speech, and 17 access to a public forum under, Rosenherger v. Rector ana 18
19 Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
20 where the Court held that a public forum does not have to be a
21 physical location, 3.) Fourteenth Amendment broad interpretation 22 of privacy rights. 4. Tort laws including fraud. 23 b. This case also belongs in federal court under Diversity 24
25 Jurisdiction all parties related to this matter do not reside in
26 the same state. The plaintiff resides in Chigasaki, Japan. The
27 defendant's principle place of business, and primary residences 28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 2 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 3 of 32
1 are located in Menlo Park, in the county of San Mateo,
2 California. The amount in controversy is also more than $75,000.
3
4 3. Venue
5 The Northern District of California may hear this cause of 6
7 action because plaintiff's harm arose from conduct committed by
8 the defendants within the city of Menlo Park, located in the
9 county of San Mateo. Further, Facebook Inc. founder, chairman of
10 the board and chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg and chief 11 operating officer, director and member of Facebook Inc. equity 12
13 subcommittee, Sheryl Sandberg both have their primary residences
14 located in Menlo Park, which is a city located within the county
15 of San Mateo, in the state of California.
16
17 4 . In-tradistrict Assignment
18 This lawsuit should be assigned to San Francisco/Oakland 19
20 because the defendant's actionable conduct occurred in Menlo
21 Park, a city located inside the county of San Mateo, which is
22 where Facebook's principal place of business, and the primary 23 residences of the defendants named herein are located. 24
25 5. Statement of Facts and Claims
26
27 A. Coercion of private data, privacy violations and national
28 security. Facebook tracks users, reads private messages, cranes
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc. ^ et al. Complaint Page 3 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 4 of 32
1 informa-bion from those messages, and thereaf-ber provides that
2 information to marketers, and engages in surveillance for
3 government agencies in violation of Fourth Amendment warrant requirements. 4
5 Sal. On May 5^^, 2015, Facebook Inc. (Facebook) blocked
6 access to a Facebook page, http://facebook.com/stack.jones, 7 which the plaintiff had operated since January of 2009. Blocking 8 access to the page resulted in irreparable harm to the 9
10 plaintiff, including the loss of business contacts. This was not
11 the first time Facebook blocked access to the page in question.
12 Each blocking was committed for the sole purpose of coercing the 13 extraction of private information, including names, addresses, 14 and various forms of identification, including plaintiff's 15
16 photographic images that the company used for facial recognition
17 technology purposes. Thereafter, Facebook provided that private
18 information to third parties, including governmental agencies, 19 without informing the plaintiff, or obtaining informed consent. 20
21 5bl. The blocking of the page that took place on May 5^^,
22 2015 occurred mere minutes after the plaintiff had filed a 23 complaint with the company that photographic images of 24
25 plaintiff's fifteen-month-old infant child, which were placed in
26 a private folder, with restricted access, and not available to
27 the public, were displayed publicly on Facebook.
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 4 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 5 of 32
1 5cl. Facebook was reckless in allowing the images of the
2 plaintiff's child to be displayed publicly. Regardless, after
3 obtaining notice to remove said images from public viewing, 4 Facebook did not take any action whatsoever to have the 5
6 photographic images of the plaintiff s fifteen-month-old infant
7 child removed from public viewing, but instead responded by
8 blocking plaintiff's access to http://facebook.com/stack.jones.
9
10 5dl. The blocking of the page was retaliatory in nature,
11 and resulted in preventing the plaintiff from obtaining access
12 to more than 1200 contacts, including phone numbers, email 13 addresses, and physical addresses. The blocking also prevented 14 the plaintiff from being able to communicate with business 15
16 entities, family members and friends.
17 5el. The blocking of the page in question also prevented 18
19 the plaintiff from taking the necessary steps to ensure the
20 photographic images of plaintiff's infant child were removed
21 from public viewing, as access to Facebook is blocked from those
22 that do not have a Facebook account. 23
24 5fl. Facebook permitting photographic images of the
25 plaintiff's infant child to be viewed publicly, resulted in an 26 invasion of privacy. Facebook's has a history of disregard for 27
28 end user rights, and the company unceasingly invades the right
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc. ^ et al. Complaint Page 5 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 6 of 32
1 Of privacy, and is the subject of numerous class action suits.
2 5gl. The plaintiff contacted Facebook's Appeals Department, 3
4 and was subjected to endless harassment, that included Facebook
5 demanding the plaintiff ^'identify'' himself by providing two
6 copies of United States government issued forms on 7 identification, including passport and other forms of 8 identification in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, 9
10 Chapter 33, Section 701.
11
5hl. Other forms of identification Facebook demanded 12
13 include copies of military identification, social security
14 cards, green cards, voter identification, driver licenses,
15 credit cards, bank statements, medical records, marriage
16 certificates, insurance cards, paycheck stubs, utility bills, 17 yearbook photos, etc. Facebook demanded photographic images be 18
19 attached to these forms of identification. These demands were
20 legally impossible as nearly none of these forms of
21 identification, including social security cards, or marriage
22 certificates have photographic images imbedded in them. 23
24 5il. Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701,
25 makes it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment of up to 26 six months for each offense for photocopying much of the 27
28
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 6 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 7 of 32
1 documentation Facebook had demanded the plaintiff turn over to
2 the company. Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701
3 does not permit government issued identification photocopied, 4 and turned over to any third party for any purpose whatsoever. 5
6 This would especially apply to Facebook where the company is
7 notoriously known for failing to recognize the right of privacy,
8 and where the company has been providing that private data to
9 marketers, and other entities, including governmental agencies 10 without prior prior knowledge, or consent. 11
12 5jl. The plaintiff refused to be coerced by Facebook into 13 submitting the demanded private data citing. Title 18, U.S. Code 14 Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701, stating that doing so could 15
16 result in the plaintiff being convicted of crimes, and that said
17 convictions could result in both fines and imprisonment of up to
18 six months for each offense. Regardless, Facebook, continued to 19 demand the plaintiff to turn over copies of federally issued 20 forms of identification in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Part 21
22 I, Chapter 33, Section 701. Facebook continued to refuse to
23 reinstate plaintiff's access to http://facebook.com/stack.jones,
24 and continues to coerce other end users to violate federal law 25 related to Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701. 26
27 5kl. Facebook's identification scheme continues unabated.
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., at al. Complaint Page 7 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 8 of 32
1 and has resulted in numerous class action filings in both U.S.
2 federal court, as well as courts in other nations, and are
3 related to the same privacy right violations described herein. 4 The demand for identification is in reality a sophisticated 5
6 scheme designed to collect private information, which is then
7 disseminated to any third party that is willing to pay a premium
8 for that information. Facebook's identification scheme also
9 results in private information being turned over to government 10 agencies, which obtains, and searches that information without 11
12 warrants, which is constitutionally mandated.
13 511. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures 14 of private property, and if that private information is to be 15
16 turned over to a government agency, a warrant is required. A
17 warrant is a written order signed by a court authorizing a law-
18 enforcement officer to conduct a search and seizure of property. 19 Searches, and seizures performed without a valid warrant are 20 presumptively invalid, and evidence seized without a warrant is 21
22 suppressed. An application for a warrant must be supported by a
23 sworn, detailed statement made by a law enforcement officer
24 appearing before a neutral judge or magistrate, stating what is 25 being sought, and where the search, and seizures are to be 26 carried out. The Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause 27
28 exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer's
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 8 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 9 of 32
1 knowledge provides a reasonably trustworthy basis for a person
2 of reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has
3 been committed or is about to take place. See, Carroll vs. 4 United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). 5
6 5ml. The plaintiff seeks the court to compel Facebook to 7 release any documentation which would show the company had in 8 fact turned over any private data to any third party, including 9
10 government agencies, and if so, for what purposes?
11 5o. Facebook servers have reportedly been breached on 12
13 numerous occasions. As a result, private information has been
14 made available to unidentified third party '"hackers." A hacker
15 is one who uses computer programming skills to gain illegal
16 access to a computer network or file. The last thing the U.S. 17 government needs in their war against terrorism is for a massive 18
19 pool of federally issued forms of government identification,
20 including military forms of identification, carelessly stored on
21 Facebook's unsecure servers, hacked, and placed in the hands of
22 extremists, and/or terrorist organizations. Using a balancing 23 test between the government's interest in national security 24
25 versus Facebook's interest in reaping unearned revenue through
26 coercion and extortion of its end users is a no brainer.
27
28 B. Japan, natural disasters and International communications.
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 9 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 10 of 32
1 5nl. The plaintiff is an American citizen who has resided
2 in Japan since 2007. In March of 2011, the plaintiff suffered
3 the loss of housing and business due to the massive earthquake 4 and tsunami that was widely reported, and which wiped out nearly 5
6 the entire east coast of Japan. The plaintiff was in fact the
7 first person to communicate to the west that Japan had suffered
8 the huge disaster. The plaintiff had used Facebook to
9 communicate those messages immediately prior to being cut off 10 access to all forms of communication sources, due to the loss of 11
12 power, and internet service, which was down for many days, and
13 in some areas many months.
14 Sol. During that disaster, the plaintiff was able to 15
16 communicate to family that he had survived, and used Facebook to
17 communicate that information. The plaintiff also used Facebook
18 to communicate to western media sources during that disaster, 19 appeared on Dateline with Brian Williams, and used his 20 reporting, and photography to report to Facebook, ABC, MSNBC, 21
22 PBS, NHK and other media outlets during that disaster. The
23 plaintiff also used Facebook to contact Nancy Pelosi, where the
24 U.S. Embassy had taken no action whatsoever to evacuate U.S. 25 citizens during Japan's nuclear crisis. Congresswoman Pelosi hac^ 26 airplanes on the tarmac at Narita airport within 24 hours as a 27
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 10 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 11 of 32
1 direct result of plaintiff's ability to communicate via Facebook
2 to the congresswoman. Plaintiff's access to the Facebook account
3 is what made those communications possible. 4
5 5pl. Japan has had many earthquakes since 3.11.11., and
6 several large earthquakes had occurred as Facebook continued to 7 refuse plaintiff access to the page in question. Facebook's 8
unconscionable actions resulted in emotional distress to the 9
10 plaintiff, and plaintiff's family. Facebook's negligence
11 resulted in plaintiff's family being traumatized as they were
12 unable to communicate with the plaintiff during those 13 earthquakes. Given Japan's geological proximity, and where the 14 nation is surrounded by volatile tectonic instability, no doubt 15
16 such major natural disasters will occur again, and plaintiff's
17 family would be re-traumatized as a result of plaintiff's
18 inability to communicate with them. 19
20 C. Irreparable harm and isolation.
21
22 5ql. Denying access to plaintiff's contacts resulted in
23 the loss of business, and resulted in the plaintiff being
24 isolated from contacts with international businesses, family and
25 friends who reside in various international locations. 26
27 5rl. Irreparable harm includes where the plaintiff was
28 unable to have access to friends who had fallen ill, and
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 11 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 12 of 32
1 subsequently died as a result of those illnesses. Ironically,
2 defendant Sheryl Sandberg (Sandberg) used Facebook to
3 communicate publicly, sharing the loss she suffered regarding 4 the death of her husband. Sandberg, the chief operating office 5
6 of Facebook is directly responsible for creating the company
7 policy that has harmed the plaintiff. In that, the plaintiff and
8 Sandberg both attended the same high school in the city of North
9 Miami Beach, Florida. Because of this fact, and because both 10 parties have common friends, plaintiff wrote Sandberg a letter 11
12 for Sandberg to take the necessary steps to have the plaintiff's
13 contacts returned. Regardless, Sandberg took no action
14 whatsoever. Plaintiff also provided that same communication to
15 Facebook's legal department, and the company's attorney of 16 record, Perkins Coie. Neither legal entity took any action 17
18 whatsoever to resolve this matter. When a company has the power
19 to block access to an end user's contacts as is the case with
20 Facebook, the company owes a profession duty of care regarding
21 the manner in which those contacts are maintained. Facebook has 22 breached that duty of care. 23
24 D. Japanese government identification and facial recognition 25 technology.
26 5sl. Plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter by 27
28 photocopying his Japanese government issued form of
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 12 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 13 of 32
1 identification, and submitting it to Facebook's Appeal
2 Department. Regardless, Facebook continued to unreasonably
3 refuse plaintiff access to http://facebook.com/stack.jones. Facebook thereafter, demanded the plaintiff alter the Japanese 4 issued government identification, and replace the photographic 5 image imbedded on that identification with another "clearer 6 image of the plaintiff. Defacing a Japanese government issued 7 form of identification, which was in fact an alien registration 8 card, would amount to altering the image on a federally issued 9 U.S. passport, visa, or green card. It is a felony in both
10 countries to alter any aspect of any of these forms of
11 identification. Altering an alien registration card in Japan is
12 punishable by a prison sentence, and would result in deportation proceedings as well. Plaintiff refused to alter the Japanese 13 identification, and Facebook continued to refuse to reinstate 14 the plaintiff's page and continued to refuse the plaintiff 15 access to his contacts. 16
17 5tl. Facebook demanded the plaintiff provide a much larger,
18 and much clearer photographic image, with an emphasis on greater
19 photographic detail. The plaintiff was already familiar with
20 this ruse, as Facebook has been using government issued 21 identification in its facial recognition technology, and doing 22
23 so without providing notice to end users or obtaining prior
24 consent. Even so, the identification issued to Facebook was
25 clear, and included the information Facebook had been attempting
26 to extort from the plaintiff, which was plaintiff's name, age 27 and photographic likeness. 28
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., at al. Complaint Page 13 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 14 of 32
1 5ul. Given the facts stated above, there can be little
2 doubt that what Facebook was truly after was not a form of
3 identification to reinstate http;//facebook.com/stack.jones, but 4 was in fact, fraud, to coerce photographic images of the 5
6 plaintiff that was to be used in Facebook's facial recognition
7 databases, which plaintiff adamantly refused to participate in.
8 5vl. Facebook has engaged in several fraudulent facial 9
10 recognition identification scams. Facebook researchers recently
11 published a paper in which they detailed the capabilities of the
12 company's newly created artificial intelligence system, 13 DeepFace. According to Facebook, when DeepFace is asked whether 14 two photos show the same person, it answers correctly 97.25% of 15
16 the time. Humans answer correctly 97.53%.
17 5wl. The Federal Trade Commission issued recommendations on 18
19 the use of facial recognition by private companies back in 2012,
20 calling for consumers to be informed of its use, and given the
21 choice to opt out. Without notice, or informed consent, Facebook
22 has engaged in the use of facial recognition technology to 23 create a massive library of images of end users, which is then 24
25 provided to marketers, and governmental agencies who collect
26 that private information in violation of constitutionally
27 mandated warrant requirements described above.
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 14 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 15 of 32
1 5x1.The use of Facebook's facial recognition technology has
2 resulted in class action lawsuits in numerous jurisdictions, and
3 the barring of said technology in the European Union. A massive 4 class action lawsuit where Facebook is the defendant, and 5
6 related to facial recognition technology, and privacy right
7 violations is currently being heard in the European Court of
8 Justice in Luxembourg, which is Europe's highest court.
9
10 5yl. The plaintiff had engaged in reasonable measures to
11 remedy the matter stated herein. Even so, for nearly two years,
12 Facebook continues to refuse to recognize the illegality of the 13 company's conduct, and continues to block plaintiff's access to 14 http://facebook.com/stack.jones, and contact information. 15
16 5zl. Facebook's ongoing scheme to collect private 17 information, in violation of plaintiff and other end user's 18
19 privacy rights is repugnant, and the fraudulent manner in which
20 the company engages in collecting, and disseminating that
21 information shocks the conscience of any reasonable person.
22
23 E. Facebook, free speech and the public forum.
24 5a2. Facebook blocks end user accounts for no legitimate 25
26 purpose. Facebook denying the plaintiff access to
27 http://facebook.com/stack.jones, prevents the flow of speech,
28 thoughts and ideas, and violates traditional state and federal
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 15 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 16 of 32
1 public forum laws. Facebook has become the modern public forum,
2 similar to a public sidewalk, or shopping center parking lot.
3 Most lawyers today argue that Facebook is a public forum. 4
5 5b2. There once was a federal law that required the rider
6 of a horse, when coming upon an intersection, to dismount, anc^ 7 thereafter fire a warning shot into the air before remounting, 8 and proceeding. Thankfully, that antiquated law was removed from 9
10 the books. Most state and federal cases today are handled online
11 through EFiling. Some federal courts have also permitted service
12 of process through Facebook. This new way of handling legal 13 matter saves the courts time and money. The time is ripe for 14 federal courts to recognize that online communications, 15
16 including Facebook, which boasts 2 billion end users, has
17 replaced the antiquated idea of what a public forum is.
18
19 5b2. The plaintiff asks the court to determine that
20 Facebook is the modern equivalent of the traditionally accepted
21 view of what a forum is. If the court agrees with most
22 attorneys, that Facebook is a public forum, then what is at 23 issue in the matter herein, regarding Facebook's blocking access 24
25 to end user's pages, and coercing the release of private data
26 would be constitutionally prohibited, as nobody that speaks
27 publicly has ever been required to first publicly display who
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 16 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 17 of 32
1 they are. Such requirement would result in a chilling effect,
2 and would directly impede free speech, and the right to privacy.
3
4 5c2. Facebook's principal place of business is located in
5 the state of California. The California Constitution provides
6 that every person may freely speak, write and publish their 7 sentiments on any subject matter. California courts have also 8 held that the California free speech clause is more definitive 9
10 and inclusive than the First Amendment. See, Wilson vs. Superior
11 Court, 13 Cal.Sd 652, 658 (1975) . Also see, Griset vs. Fair
12 Political Practices Com., 8 Cal.4th 851, 866 (1994). 13
14 5d2. The liberty of speech clause in California's
15 Constitution is broader, and gives greater liberty than the
16 First Amendment. As a general matter, the liberty of speech 17 clause in the California Constitution is more protective of 18
19 speech than its federal counterpart according to. People vs.
20 Glaze, 27 Cal.Sd 841, 844 (1980), and Dailey vs. Superior Court,
21 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 (1896).
22
23 5e2. There are three kinds of forums recognized by the
24 Supreme Court of the U.S., 1.) The public or traditional forum,
25 which receives the greatest protection. 2.) The limited or 26 designated forum, which receives less protection. 3.) The non- 27
28 public forum, which may allow time, place, and manner protection
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 17 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 18 of 32
1 limitations.
2 5f2. The plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether 3
4 Facebook, a publicly traded company that is turning over private
5 information to government agencies has affectively become a
6 defacto government agency. If so, Facebook should be subjected 7 to the greatest forms of traditional forum protections and be 8 recognized as a public or traditional forum. Even under the non- 9
10 public forum rational, of time, place and manner regulations,
11 where speech-related activity occurs, any restrictions must be
12 reasonable and forums such as Facebook must not be permitted to 13 engage in efforts to suppress expression. See, United States 14 Postal Service vs. Council of Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 15
16 U.S. 114, 131 (1981).
17 F. Facebook bars some authors, con^osers, artists, and other 18 entertainers from using pseudonyms, but permits others to do so, 19 in violation of the First Amendment, thereby triggering the 20 Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, strict scrutiny 21 test. Facebook refusal to permit some authors, composers, 22 artists, and other entertainers from using pseudonyms causes 23 disadvantages to the subclass Facebook has knowingly created.
24 5g2. What do Bono, Sting, Madonna, Perry Farrell, A.J. 25 Jenkins, and the artist formerly known as Prince all have in 26
27 common? They all have Facebook pages. Yet, none of these artists
28 are coerced to publicly display their "real" names.
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 18 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 19 of 32
1 5h2. Facebook has a ^'real name" policy that only applies to
2 parties the company selectively uses that '"policy" against.
3 Numerous artists, including the plaintiff have been barred from 4 their Facebook page for using pseudonyms, even after the 5
6 plaintiff provided Facebook valid identification, which he was
7 not legally required to do.
8 5i2. After submitting identification, Facebook claimed the
9 plaintiff could not use Stack Jones as a pseudonym on 10 plaintiff's Facebook page, and even where plaintiff was 11
12 communicating to Facebook via email0stackjones.com, the
13 plaintiff's only email address, Facebook claimed that the
14 plaintiff's identification could not be verified. A cursory
15 inspection of URL registration of stackjones.com could have 16 resolved that matter quite easily, revealing the plaintiff as 17
18 owner of that URL. Facebook continued to demand various forms of
19 identification, and photos. Facebook's action amounts to
20 harassment.
21 5j2. The plaintiff has used the pseudonym Stack Jones on 22 Facebook since 2009. The plaintiff has used the pseudonym Stack 23
24 Jones since the late 1970s, as a recording artist, and long
25 before the internet was available for public use. Even before
26 the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg) was
27 conceived by his parents. 28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 19 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 20 of 32
1 5k;2. The plaintiff has registered and used the URL,
2 stackjones.com since 1991, even before Facebook.com was
3 registered as the company's URL, and prior to Zuckerberg 4 stealing the technology used to create the company from former 5
6 partners, and absconded to the west coast of the U.S. with that
7 technology.
8 512. Plaintiff uses the name Stack Jones as a music
9 composer, and music producer, and collects royalties through 10 ASCAP under that pseudonym. Stack Jones is also a registered 11
12 trademark, and had been registered by the plaintiff's recording
13 label president Rodney Young. Facebook's attempts at forcing the
14 plaintiff to use any other name, confuses fans, and friends that
15 know the plaintiff as Stack Jones. Such actions tarnish brands, 16 and could result in irreparable harm. The plaintiff also uses 17
18 Stack Jones as a contributing writer and photographer for Tokyo
19 Weekender Magazine, and other publications, and had appeared in
20 motion pictures, national television and national radio
21 broadcasts being credited with that pseudonym. Finally, the 22 plaintiff's contacts recognize the pseudonym as the name they 23
24 identify the plaintiff with. Facebook has no legal standing to
25 force the plaintiff to change the name plaintiff has used
26 publicly his entire adult life.
27
28 5m2. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 20 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 21 of 32
1 judicial review used by U.S. federal courts. The different
2 levels of scrutiny were introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court in
3 United States vs. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, (1938). 4 Facebook permitting some artists to use a pseudonym and barring 5
6 others who are similarly situated violates both free speech and
7 the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff believes that Facebook
8 could not survive the strict scrutiny test set forth in Carolene
9 Products. Further, the plaintiff believes that Facebook blocking 10 pseudonym uses could not survive either the middle tier scrutiny 11
12 test, or the rational basis test. Public forums have never
13 required speakers to publicly display personal information,
14 prior to being permitted to publicly speak. If Facebook is
15 permitted to coerce authors, composers, artists and other 16 entertainers to disclose, and publicly display personal 17
18 information on a Facebook page this would result in a chilling
19 affect, preventing and restricting artistic, entertainers and
20 political speech and expression. Displaying identification
21 publicly could also result in stalking and other serious crimes. 22
23 5n2. The plaintiff has never used his ^'real" name online,
24 and for good reason. Prior to the filing of this matter. Case
25 No. 17-DR-000763, had already been underway in the 13th Judicial 26 District, Hillsborough County Court, in the state of Florida. In 27
28 that matter the plaintiff is seeking a restraining order against
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 21 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 22 of 32
1 a serial cyberstalker that discovered the identity of the
2 plaintiff, and thereafter has cyberstalked, harassed, and
3 threatened the plaintiff and family for nearly a decade. The 4 cyberstalking, harassment, and threatening conduct perpetrated 5
6 by the defendant in that matter included threats of arson
7 against plaintiff's family home, the threatened use of firearms,
8 death threats, and the poisoning of a family pet, among other
9 forms of unwanted communications that have no legitimate 10 purpose. Given this fact, under what rational does Facebook 11
12 believe the plaintiff must provide his '"real" name on a Facebook
13 page? Under what rational does Facebook believe the plaintiff
14 must provide his name, address, date of birth, passport, social
15 security card, etc. for the company to exploit, regardless of 16 the damaging effects it would have on the plaintiff? 17
18 5o2. Chris Cox, a Facebook representative stated publicly
19 to other Facebook end users who are similarly situated to the 20 plaintiff, "In the two weeks since the real-name policy issues 21
22 surfaced, we've had the chance to hear from many of you in these
23 communities and understand the policy more clearly as you
24 experience it." Cox continued stating, "We've come to understand
25 how painful this has been. We owe you a better service and a 26 better experience using Facebook, and we're going to fix the way 27
28 this policy gets handled so everyone affected here can go back
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 22 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 23 of 32
1 to using Facebook as you were." Even so, Facebook has yet to
2 reinstate, http://facebook.com/stack.jones, and has yet to
3 return plaintiff's stolen contact list. 4
5 5p2. Even though Facebook announced plans to change its
6 controversial ^'real name" policy, after lobbying from civil
7 liberties groups worldwide, the company has continued to bar the 8 plaintiff from accessing the page in question, and the contacts 9
10 therein. Facebook no longer requires this "real name" scheme
11 from millions of other end users. Yet, the company continues to
12 block access to the plaintiff's page, and contact information in
13 retaliation for the plaintiff adamantly refusing to be coerced 14 into providing private information he is not willing to provide 15
16 the company. This is a clear violation of equal protection.
17 5q2. After nearly two years of dealing with Facebook 18
19 regarding this matter, a company representative communicated in
20 writing that the decision to bar the plaintiff access to the
21 page in question and to more than 1200 contacts, was final, and
22 that the plaintiff would not be granted access to the page 23 again. This irrational decision has caused the plaintiff 24
25 irreparable harm.
26 5r2. The plaintiff hopes that he has clearly shown there 27 are a myriad of valid reasons that end users of Facebook must 28
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc.^ et al. Complaint Page 23 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 24 of 32
1 not be forced to disclose private information or to display
2 their """real" names online, and that Facebook had never given any
3 consideration to these matters, prior to Chris Cox's public 4
statement. 5
6 5s2. Ironically, when Facebook is forced to turn over end
7 user's private data to state and federal agencies regarding 8 lawsuits, or criminal probes, the company is quick to argue the 9
10 government demands violate the company's constitutional right to
11 "protect" its end users to be free of unreasonable searches and
12 seizures. This is almost laughable, as Facebook is known to have
13 provided a large amounts of private end users data to government 14 agencies without a warrant, or end user knowledge. Why not the 15
16 Manhattan district attorney? This particular matter is related
17 to a massive scheme involving 1,000 federal government employees
18 who defrauded the federal government of more than 4 00M USD in
19 benefits" according to Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for the 20 Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. 21
22 6. Facebook has engaged in numerous fraudulent schemes to coelrce 23 private information in violation of privacy rights, resulting in 24 distrust of Facebook, and company founder Mark Zuckerberg.
25
26 5t2. Since 2009, Facebook has engaged in numerous schemes
27 to obtain private information the plaintiff is not willing to
28 provide the company, merely because the company cannot be
Jack stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 24 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 25 of 32
1 trusted with the private data obtained. One such reason is where
2 the company's founder, Mark Zuckerberg publicly mocked Facebook
3 end users for trusting him with their personal information. 4 Zuckerberg was quoted as saying, "They trust me... dumb fucks." 5
6 5u2. Facebook purchased a sign, "The Hacker Company," and
7 hung it at the entrance of its company headquarters, located at 8 1 Hacker Way. A former Facebook employee, Chris Putnam, was 9
10 hired by Facebook due to his ability to hack into the company.
11 Putnam saw the Hacker Company sign in Lake City, Florida, and
12 thereafter Zuckerberg purchased the sign. It must be noted that 13 Facebook, also had the street named outside its headquarters. 14 Hacker Way. It should become immediately apparent that Facebook, 15
16 and its founder relate intimately with hackers, because that is
17 in fact what the company engages in, the hacking of private
18 information of unsuspecting end users in violation of the broad 19 privacy rights afforded them. Facebook is not a company that 20 anyone should feel comfortable turning over private information 21
22 to.
23 5v2. The plaintiff does not trust defendant Zuckerberg, 24
25 defendant Sandberg, or Facebook Inc., the company they operate.
26 The company has a track record of proving it falls well below
27 any standard of duty of care regarding the retention of private
28 data the company has collected from end users.
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., at al. Complaint Page 25 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 26 of 32
1 H. Other schemes to coerce private data and prior bad acts.
2 5w2. Facebook has engaged in numerous schemes blocking 3
4 access to the plaintiff's page. This included the company
5 demanding the plaintiff, ''identify" himself, by identifying
6 people located in plaintiff's friends list. What this amounts to
7 is that through stealth, Facebook searched through folders of 8 plaintiff's friends, which held their photos, and took 9
10 possession of those images and placed them in the company's
11 facial recognition database. Thereafter the company would block
12 access to pages, and demand third parties identify people in
13 those photographs. This conduct is criminal in nature, and is in 14 fact a form of extortion. It is in the matter described above, 15
16 at least in part, how Facebook was able to create the enormous
17 facial recognition technology database that has become the
18 subject of massive class action suits against the company. As a
19 result of Facebook's fraudulent activities, the photographs 20 taken from private folders where permanently "fingerprinted", 21
22 and identified by unsuspecting "friends", and without either
23 party providing consent to such an invasive scheme. What is
24 described above amounts to much more than an invasion of privacy
25 but also criminal offenses that range from fraud, to 26 identification theft, and for each count. In none of those 27
28 "identify" yourself schemes had Facebook actually sought for the
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc. ^ et al. Complaint Page 26 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 27 of 32
1 plaintiff to identify himself. In reality, Facebook had accessed
2 photos of friends of the plaintiff, without their knowledge, or
3 consent, and created a facial recognition database that is being 4 provided to third parties. No one benefits from this scheme 5
6 except Facebook managers, shareholders, and third parties that
7 are now in possession of that data.
8 5x2. Facebook has been sued regarding false advertising, 9
10 and misrepresentation of facts, including intentionally
11 manipulating Facebook profiles to give the public the false
12 impression that the end user liked or endorsed a particular
13 product. 14
15 5y2. Facebook was ordered to pay 20M USD for stolen data
16 that included minor children as a subclass, where the company 17 was collecting and disseminating data belonging to minors. 18
19 5z2. A federal judge rejected Facebook's request to have a
20 suit dismissed regarding the company's use of photo-tagging, 21 which uses facial recognition technology that invades end user's 22
23 privacy.
24 5a3. A federal judge ruled that Facebook will face a class- 25
26 action lawsuit for reading end users private messages without
27 consent. Zuckerberg failed to explain how scanning end user's
28 messages fell under the company's ordinary course of business.
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 21 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 28 of 32
1 5b3. Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley sued Facebook in
2 U.S. district court in Northern California where Facebook was
3 scanning messages between users labeled ^"private" for links and 4 other information that was then sold to advertisers, marketers 5
6 and data aggregators.
7
8 5c3. Facebook lost 500M USD to Oculus VR, over stolen
9 technology.
10
11 5d3. Facebook is being sued for refusing to suspend
12 accounts that distribute ^'revenge porn". Revenge porn Facebook
13 pages have but one aim, and that is to humiliate people, and
14 ruin their lives. 15
16 5e3. Actor, director Vincent Gallo sued Facebook after the
17 company refused to delete an account that impersonated him. It 18 must be noted that Gallo has never created a Facebook account. 19
20 Gallo provided Facebook two different scanned images of his
21 driver's license so as to prove his identity. Regardless,
22 Facebook refused to take down the fake account.
23
24 5f3. Facebook's actions amount to recklessness, and
25 criminal theft of personal information, which is obtained
26 through both stealth, and fraud. The company doesn't care what
27 court think as to their objectionably conduct, so long as 28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 28 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 29 of 32
1 quarterly earnings continue to meet, or beat Wall Street
2 expectations.
3
4 I. Conclusion
5
6 The plaintiff is no longer interested in having a Facebook
7 page, but does seeks the return of the names, emails, phone
8 numbers, and addresses of the more than 1200 contacts Facebook 9 stole from the plaintiff while attempting to coerce private 10
11 information the company has no legitimate purpose to acquire.
12 The plaintiff seeks an order compelling Facebook to cease
13 disseminating plaintiff's private data to any third party, and
14 for any purpose whatsoever. 15
16 After the plaintiff obtains the contact information
17 Facebook stole from the plaintiff, the plaintiff seeks a
18 specific performance order to compel Facebook to destroy all of 19 plaintiff's information that is currently in the possession of 20
21 Facebook, including data stored on servers, and other forms of
22 storage, including hardcopy paper. This includes the deletion,
23 and destruction of photographic images, text, posts,
24 communications, messages, and links that had been posted on the 25 page in question, as well as any other information Facebook is 26
27 currently in possession of. The plaintiff seeks actual proof
28 that the data in fact is destroyed, and that the information is
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 29 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 30 of 32
1 no longer accessible by Facebook or any other third party.
2 The plaintiff also seeks the court to compel Facebook to 3
4 turn over any, and all records that show Facebook has provided
5 plaintiff's personal data to any third party, including
6 advertising agencies, governmental agencies, and other third 7 parties that Facebook had provided that information, whether 8 sold, licensed, leased, traded, loaned, or given away, for any 9
10 purpose whatsoever.
11
6. Demand for Relief 12
13 Plaintiff made numerous attempts to resolve this matter prior to 14 filing this action, to avoid a legal conflict, but to no avail. 15
16 The plaintiff prays the court will award damages including 17 punitive damages in the amount of 12,060,000 USD. The monetary 18 figure amounts to 10,000.00 USD for each contact Facebook has 19
20 denied the plaintiff access to for a near two-year period, and
21 continues to deny the plaintiff access to.
22
23 Facebook has committed the aforementioned tortious conduct
24 in a variety of sophisticated schemes, and continues to engage
25 in those schemes, seemingly regardless of consequences.
26 Therefore, the amount in controversy is not unreasonable given 27 the extensive history of fraud, and misrepresentation the 28
company has engaged in, in the past, and the various schemes Jack
stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 30 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 31 of 32
1 company continues to engage in in the present, so as to coerce
2 private information from end users.
3
4 The punitive damages sought are appropriate because
5 Facebook has engaged in numerous schemes that has harmed
6 millions of end users, many who currently seek a legal remedy, 7 and where such said conduct has been barred in various 8 jurisdictions, including the European Union. Further, the 9
10 punitive damage amount is not unreasonable given the fact that
11 Facebook has assets that exceed 503 USD, and the amount sought
12 does not impede the daily operations of the company. Facebook's 13 fourth-quarter sales as of 2016, beat Wall Street estimates, 14 even where, on the same day a 500M USD jury verdict that went 15
16 against the company did little to diminish enthusiasm about its
17 finances and repugnant practices. Facebook sales totaled $8.8
18 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016, up 51%, compared to a 19 year earlier, surpassing analysts' expectations of $8.5 billion. 20 Further still, much of the company's assets are held in offshore 21
22 accounts so as to avoid paying taxes in the U.S., according to a
23 recent action filed by Caroline Ciraolo, Assistant Attorney
24 General, and James Weaver, Senior Litigation Counsel for the 25 Internal Revenue Services, Tax Division. 26
27
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 31 Of 32 Case 3:17-cv-01738-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/29/17 Page 32 of 32
1 Finally, Facebook must be made to understand that state and
2 federal law applies to everyone, and a criminal probe into the
3 company's illegal activities must be thoroughly investigated by 4 federal prosecutors. 5
6 Facebook must be made to understand that constitutional
7 provisions, and privacy rights may not be waived through 8
coercion and are not unalienable. 9
10 7. Demand for Jury Trial 11
12 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues stated herein. 13
14 The information presented in this complaint is accurate, made in good faith, and is intended to help the court make a 15 determination as to the severity of the conduct the defendants 16 have, and continue to engage in.
17 Respectfully submitted. 18
19 Date: March 3^*^, 2017 Sign Name: /s/ Jack Stone 20 Print Name: Jack Stone
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jack Stone vs. Facebook Inc., et al. Complaint Page 32 Of 32