Secondo il diritto californiano la chiusura immotivata dell’account, con distruzione di tutto il materiale ivi caricato, non viola alcun diritto contrattuale dell’utente di Facebook: così la corte del distretto nord della California, 20.04.2022, King v. Facebook, Case 3:21-cv-04573-EMC .
Negata la violazione del contratto (breach of contract) e respinsta l’istanza di rimessione in pristino (specific perfornance), restano in piedi le istanze connesse alla violazione della buona fede per carenza di motivazione e/o di indicazione di quali sarebbero state le condizioni generali (Terms of service) violate.
Anche queste , però , sono rigettate perchè, come che sia, non è dalla violazione della b.f. che discende il danno della perdita dei materiali.
INoltre Facebook non poteva sapere il danno che avrebbe potuto generare in capo al’utente:
<< Here, Ms. King has failed to show that either the subjective or objective test has been satisfied. Ms. King did not actually communicate to Facebook that she was using her account as a photo repository and that she did not otherwise retain her photos elsewhere as one normally would. Nor is there any indication that Facebook actually knew that Ms. King was using her account as a photo repository. Finally, Ms. King’s suggestion that Facebook should have known
that she was using her account as a photo repository – because it “was more convenient and permanent and did not involve storing photo albums and preserving physical photographs,” SAC ¶ 24 – strains credulity. Arguably, Facebook should have known that Ms. King would post photos on her account. However, nothing suggests Facebook should have known that she would not
maintain her photos elsewhere (whether as hard copies or digital copies saved onto a hard drive, on a phone, flash drive, or in the cloud), especially given that the photos were of great personal value to her (so much so that she planned on compiling them into a memoir of her life). See SAC ¶ 24. Certainly, there is no suggestion that Facebook markets itself as a photo repository. And the fact that Facebook has a “memorialization” feature for people who have died can hardly be considered the same thing as a photo storage.
Accordingly, Ms. King’s special damages are not recoverable as a matter of law. The Court also notes that, even if the damages were theoretically recoverable, Ms. King would run into another obstacle – namely, the limitation of liability provision in the TOS. That provision states as follows:
We work hard to provide the best Products we can and to specify
clear guidelines for everyone who uses them. Our Products,
however, are provided “as is,” and we make no guarantees that they
always will be safe, secure, or error-free, or that they will function
without disruptions, delays, or imperfections. To the extent permitted by law, we also DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT. We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not responsible for their actions or conduct (whether online or offline) or any content they share
(including offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful, and other
objectionable content). [¶] We cannot predict when issues might
arise with our Products. Accordingly, our liability shall be limited to
the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and under no
circumstance will we be liable to you for any lost profits,
revenues, information, or data, or consequential, special, indirect,
exemplary, punitive, or incidental damages arising out of or
related to these Terms or the Facebook Products, even if we
have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Our
aggregate liability arising out of or relating to these Terms or the
Facebook Products will not exceed the greater of $100 or the
amount you have paid us in the past twelve months.
TOS ¶ 3 (emphasis added). The limitation of liability provision expressly bars Ms. King’s claim for special damages, and Ms. King has not challenged the validity of that provision. See, e.g., Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. USA, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 1126 (2012) (“With respect to claims for breach of contract, limitation of liability clauses are enforceable unless they are unconscionable . . . .”)>>.
Decisione criticabile, almeno se fosse così stata decisa secondo il nostro diritto:
1° un dovere di buona fede impone almeno di dare un preavviso;
2° la b.f. fa parte dei doveri contrattuali;
3° la chiusura immotivata è illegittima;
4° la mancanza di preavviso è illegittimo;
4° i dannni conseguenti ad essa sono illegittimi.
5° la comunicazione preventiva del motivo avrebbe permesso all’utente di cautelarsi facendo copia dei file. Ovvio che la comunicazione successiva, a distruzione avvenuta, non possa essere causa dei relativi danni.
6° FB sa benissimo che files ospita e quindi quale danno può generare: i suoi filtri automatizzati non hanno alcuna difficoltà in tale senso . Basti pensare al newsfeed e alla pubblicitòà tarata sull’utente che costantemente lo assilla (microtargeting): è il cuore del business di FB sapere il più possibile tramite i materiali caricati , gli amici presenti, i link inseriti etc..
La limitazione di responsabilità , in caso di consumatore, come pare nel caso, sarebbe nulla ex art. 33.2.b) cod. cons.
(notizia della sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman ove anche link alla precedente decisione 12.12.2021 nel medesimo caso).