L’appello del 2 circuito , 01.05.2025, Docket No. 23‐7597‐cv, Solomon cv. Flipps Media – Fite TV.
Si tratta di info inviate dal gestore di video streaming Fite a Facebook circa l’uso della propria piattaforma da parte degli utenti, info raccolte tramite la applicazione Pixel, inclusiva del servizio PageView, fornita dallo stesso Facebook.
Le info inviate son quelle presenti nella schermata che segue ,
Sia il giudice di primo grado che quello di appello ritengono che non ci sia identificabilità della persona, alla luce del Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (da noi v. art. 4 n. 1 del reg. UE 679/2016).
<<The information transmitted by FITE to Facebook via the Pixelʹs
PageView is set forth in the ʺexemplar screenshotʺ reproduced in the Complaint.
See page 9 supra; Joint Appʹx at 20. The exemplar depicts some twenty‐nine lines
of computer code, and the video title is indeed contained in Box A following the
GET request. The words of the title, however, are interspersed with many
characters, numbers, and letters. It is implausible that an ordinary person would
look at the phrase ʺtitle%22%3A%22‐%E2%96%B7%20The%20Roast%20of%‐
20Ric%20Flairʺ ‐‐ particularly if the highlighting in Box A is removed ‐‐ and
understand it to be a video title.14 It is also implausible that an ordinary person
would understand, ʺwith little or no extra effort,ʺ the highlighted portion to be a
video title as opposed to any of the other combinations of words within the code,
such as, for example, ʺ%9C%93%20In%20the%20last%20weekend%20of%20‐
July%2C.ʺ Id.; Joint Appʹx at 20.
Nor does the Complaint plausibly allege that an ordinary person
could identify Solomon through her FID. Because the redacted sequence of
numbers in the second line of Box B is not labeled, the FID would be just one
phrase embedded in many other lines of code. And if the numbers in the
exemplar were not redacted, what an individual would see is, for example, a
phrase such as ʺc_user=123456ʺ or ʺc_user=00000000.ʺ Although a section of the
code in Box A does state ʺ[h]ost: www.facebook.com,ʺ it is not plausible that an
ordinary person, without the annotation of Box B, would see the ʺc_userʺ phrase
on FITEʹs servers and conclude that the phrase was a personʹs FID.
Notably, the Complaint lacks any details about how an ordinary
person might access the information on the Pixelʹs PageView. But even
assuming, arguendo, that an ordinary person could somehow gain access to the
Pixelʹs PageView, the Complaint is also devoid of any details about how an
ordinary person would use an FID to identify Solomon. The Complaint merely
states that entering ʺfacebook.com/[Solomonʹs FID]ʺ into any web browser would
result in Solomonʹs personal Facebook profile, and that ʺ[t]his basic method of
accessing a personʹs Facebook profile is generally and widely known among the
public.ʺ Joint Appʹx at 21. But see In re Nickelodeon, 827 F.3d at 283 (ʺTo an
average person, an IP address or a digital code in a cookie file would likely be of
little help in trying to identify an actual person.ʺ). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that an FID is ʺvastly different,ʺ Appellant Br. at 29, from the unique
device identifiers in Nickelodeon, 827 F.3d at 262, or the Roku device serial
numbers in Eichenberger, 876 F.3d at 979 >>
La decisione sarebbe stata uguale anche in base alla norma europea.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)