Gennock & Nunez V Facebook

Case 3:18-cv-01891 Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 18
1 Todd D. Carpenter (CA 234464)

[email protected]
2 Brittany C. Casola (CA 306561)
[email protected]
3 CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
4 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, California 92101
5 Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes
7 Additional Attorneys in Signature Block
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ASHLEY GENNOCK and RANDY Case No: 3:18-CV-01891
12 NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all
13 others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
14 Plaintiffs,
v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
15
16 FACEBOOK, INC. and CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs Ashley Gennock and Randy Nunez, by and through their attorneys, bring
2 this class action against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) and Cambridge Analytica
3 (“Cambridge” and, collectively with Facebook, “Defendants”), individually and on behalf
4 of all others similarly situated, and allege as follows:
5 1. This class action lawsuit is filed to redress an egregious and unprecedented
6 breach of trust and invasion of privacy by which Facebook permitted Cambridge to
7 intentionally and secretly mine the personal data of more than 50 million Facebook users
8 in order to create psychological profiles on users and use those profiles to target individuals
9 with “psychological operations” intended to influence their conduct.
10 2. Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful acts both individually and on
11 behalf of all Facebook users whose personal information was acquired by Cambridge,
12 without the users’ authorization or by exceeding its authorization, as described in more
13 detail below.
14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
16 because the action arises in part under a federal statute, namely the Stored Communications
17 Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state
18 law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims form part of the same case
19 or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
20 4. In addition to federal question jurisdiction, this Court also has diversity
21 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) under the Class Action Fairness Act, because
22 the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and a
23 member of the class is a citizen of a different state from any defendant
24 5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
25 Defendants do business in and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue
26 is also proper in this District because it is the District in which a substantial part of the
27 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that
28 is the subject of the action is situated.
-2-
1 PARTIES
2 6. Plaintiff Ashley Gennock resides in Pennsylvania. Ms. Gennock joined
3 Facebook in or around June 2009.
4 7. Plaintiff Randy Nunez resides in California. Mr. Nunez joined Facebook in
5 or around July 2008.
6 8. Defendant Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
7 of business in Menlo Park, California. Facebook operates a social networking website for
8 the purpose of allowing people to interact and communicate with their family, friends, and
9 coworkers.
10 9. Defendant Cambridge Analytica is a Delaware limited liability company with
11 offices in London, New York, and Washington, D.C. Cambridge does business throughout
12 the United States.
13 COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATION
14 A. Facebook’s Promise to Users of its Social Media Platform
15 10. Plaintiffs and class members are users of Facebook’s social media platform,
16 which has more than two billion users.
17 11. To its users, Facebook provides an assurance of privacy and the ability for
18 users to control what information is transmitted to third parties.
19 12. Indeed, Facebook emphasized trust to its users and informed its users that their
20 information would not be sold or transferred to any ad network, data broker, or other
21 advertising or other monetization-related servicers.
22 13. Facebook also assured its users that their personal information would not be
23 shared without their explicit consent.
24 14. But Facebook’s interface, called “Graph API,” which allowed third parties to
25 interact with the Facebook platform, was overly permissive and, contrary to Facebook’s
26 assertions to its users, permitted developers to gain unrestricted access to a wealth of
27 personal information about Facebook users without their consent.
28
-3-
1 15. A former manager at Facebook recently informed the news media that
2 Facebook was aware of its lax approach to data protection because that manager had
3 warned senior executives at the company that there was a risk of a major breach, but the
4 senior executives chose to ignore those warnings.1
5 16. A representative from Data & Society, a research institute, confirmed that
6 “these problems [with data security] were pointed out to [Facebook] by scholars years
7 ago.”2
8 B. How Cambridge Began
9 17. In 2013, Alexander Nix was the leader of the special elections division of SCL
10 Group, a public relations firm that describes its capabilities as “psychological warfare” and
11 “influence operations.”
12 18. A meeting between Mr. Nix and Steve Bannon (the former executive
13 chairman of Brietbart News) led to the involvement of Robert Mercer (a hedge-fund
14 tycoon) in a scheme to use personality profiling to influence behavior.
15 19. With that intent, Mr. Mercer and SCL Group began Cambridge as a joint
16 venture, financed with a $15 million investment by Mr. Mercer.
17 20. Christopher Wylie was a data expert who helped start Cambridge and oversaw
18 the conduct complained of herein, and, as will be described below, was ultimately the
19 whistleblower who eventually made Defendants’ secret wrongdoings public.
20 21. According to Mr. Wylie, Messrs. Bannon and Mercer wanted to fight a culture
21 war in the US and “Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to
22 fight that culture war.”3
23
24
1
25 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/cambridge-analytica-week-
that-shattered-facebook-privacy
26 2
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/cambridge-analytica-week-
27 that-shattered-facebook-privacy
3
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-
28 campaign.html
-4-
1 22. But Mr. Wylie also realized that Cambridge did not have enough data to
2 deliver the results that Messrs. Bannon and Mercer were seeking.
3 C. Millions of Facebook Users’ Personal Information is Harvested by Cambridge
4 23. Mr. Wylie found that Cambridge University Psychometrics Center
5 researchers had developed a technique to map personality traits based on what people on
6 Facebook liked by paying small sums for Facebook users to download an application
7 (“app”) and take a personality quiz.
8 24. The app would scrape private information from the user’s profile.
9 25. Cambridge University Psychometrics Center, however, declined to work with
10 Cambridge.
11 26. But Mr. Wylie solicited Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, who was then a psychology
12 professor at Cambridge University.
13 27. Dr. Kogan was able to build his own app to use through Facebook, which was
14 key to Cambridge gathering the quantity and quality of data needed to create the
15 psychological profiles Cambridge desired.
16 28. By June 2014, Cambridge had paid over $800,000 for Dr. Kogan to begin
17 harvesting Facebook user data and transmit it to Cambridge.
18 29. Dr. Kogan, by and through his company Global Science Research, created
19 “ThisIsYourDigitalLife,” which was a personality quiz that required Facebook users to
20 download an app (the “YDL App”) to take the quiz.
21 30. Posing as an academic researcher, Cambridge identified Facebook users on
22 Amazon’s “Mechanical Turk” and Qaultric – online survey platforms – and offered to pay
23 them to download and use the YDL App, which was identified as “a research tool used by
24 psychologists.”
25 31. Cambridge paid Facebook users to download the YDL App and take the
26 personality quiz. In order to receive the payment, Cambridge required the users to log in
27 to the YDL App through the Facebook account credentials.
28
-5-
1 32. The approximate 270,000 Facebook users that downloaded the YDL App
2 were required to provide permission for the app (and thereby, Cambridge) to access
3 personal information such as that user’s profile, friend networks, “likes,” and user location.
4 33. But Cambridge was not performing academic research and did not only want
5 the answers to the YDL App’s personality quiz. What it wanted, and what it received by
6 virtue of using Facebook’s Graph API, was access to the personal information of each quiz
7 taker and all of that user’s Facebook friends’ personal information.
8 34. The YLD App obtained absolutely no permission from its users’ Facebook
9 friends to harvest their personal data.
10 35. On average, each “seeder” or direct user of the YLD App, unwittingly gave
11 access to a minimum of 160 other Facebook user’s profiles and personal information.
12 36. The whistleblower, Mr. Wylie, confirms that there are receipts, invoices,
13 emails, and letters that show how Cambridge harvested the profiles of more than
14 50,000,000 Facebook users between June and August 2014.4
15 37. The mass data collection was not only allowed, but encouraged by Facebook,
16 which sought to encourage developers to build on its platform, which, upon information
17 and belief, financially benefitted Facebook.
18 D. Facebook Learns of the Privacy Breach
19 38. Mr. Wylie confirms that Facebook would have known that the breach was
20 occurring at the time; its security protocols would be triggered because the YDL App was
21 pulling an enormous amount of data from Facebook.5
22
23
24
25
26 4
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-
27 christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump
5
-6-
1 39. By the end of 2015, Facebook was notified that the data extracted by the YDL
2 App had been transmitted to Cambridge, but Facebook choose not to notify its users and
3 took no action for months.
4 40. In mid-2016, Facebook merely wrote to Cambridge that the data could not be
5 used in the future and asked Cambridge to delete the data immediately.
6 41. Facebook made zero effort to get the data back; moreover, Cambridge did not
7 delete the data.
8 E. Cambridge Uses the Personal Data of 50 Million Facebook Users to Create
9 Psychological Profiles on Americans
10 42. With the harvested Facebook data including data points about individual’s
11 interests, activities, opinions, and motivations, Cambridge was able to create psychological
12 profiles on millions of Americans.
13 43. These profiles were used by Cambridge to make predictions about people’s
14 behaviors and to create predictions about what people will do and what motivates them.
15 44. With these profiles and predictions, Cambridge deployed “psychological
16 operations” – a method of information dominance using targeted advertisements in an
17 effort to influence people’s views and choices by playing to their preferences.
18 45. According to Mr. Wylie, Cambridge’s psychological operations were “built
19 on the back of that [harvested Facebook] data. The models, the algorithm. Everything.”6
20 46. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, not only was the personal information of
21 millions of Facebook users stolen, but that stolen data was then used in Cambridge’s
22 psychological operations targeting those individuals.
23 F. Defendants’ Wrongdoing is Discovered
24 47. Plaintiffs and the class members were not aware that Defendants’ had stolen
25 their personal information and used it against them.
26
27
6
-7-
1 48. On March 17, 2018, for the first time, Defendants actions came to light.
2 49. The Guardian published an article, based on information obtained from, inter
3 alia, Mr. Wylie, which detailed Cambridge’s unauthorized mining of 50,000,000 Facebook
4 users’ data and its employment of that data to target individuals with its psychological
5 operations to influence their views regarding the 2016 Presidential Election.7
6 G. Plaintiffs’ Experience
7 50. Plaintiff Ashley Gennock does not recall downloading the YDL App.
8 51. Ms. Gennock currently has over 3,200 Facebook “friends.”
9 52. Ms. Gennock recalls viewing political ads through her Facebook account
10 leading up to the 2016 Presidential Election.
11 53. Plaintiff Randy Nunez does not recall downloading the YDL App.
12 54. Mr. Nunez currently has over 1,000 Facebook “friends.”
13 55. Mr. Nunez recalls viewing political ads through his Facebook account leading
14 up to the 2016 Presidential Election.
15 56. Plaintiffs and class members were harmed by the misconduct of Defendants.
16 57. Plaintiffs and class members had their personal information harvested from
17 their Facebook profiles by Cambridge through use of the YDL App, either directly as a
18 user of the app, or indirectly as a Facebook “friend” of a user of the app.
19 58. Plaintiffs and class members did not consent for the YLD App to have access
20 to their personal information or else consented only for their information to be accessed for
21 academic purposes.
22 59. Plaintiffs and class members were harmed by Cambridge unlawfully
23 obtaining their personal information, using their personal information to psychologically
24 profile them, and Cambridge directing its psychological operations at them in an effort to
25 influence their views about, inter alia, the 2016 Presidential Election.
26
27
7
-8-
1 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2 60. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiffs,
3 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action on behalf of
4 themselves and the following classes of individuals:
5 CLASS: All Facebook users in the United States whose personal information
was acquired by Cambridge through use of the YDL App.
6
7 CALIFORNIA SUBCLASS: All Facebook users in California whose
personal information was acquired by Cambridge through use of the YDL
8
App.
9
PENNSYLVANIA SUBCLASS: All Facebook users in Pennsylvania whose
10
personal information was acquired by Cambridge through use of the YDL
11 App.
12
61. Excluded from the class and subclasses are Defendants and any entities in
13
which any Defendant or their subsidiaries or affiliates have a controlling interest, and
14
Defendants’ officers, agents, and employees. Also excluded from the class and subclasses
15
are any attorneys who enter their appearance in this case as well as the judge assigned to
16
this action and any member of his or her immediate family.
17
62. Numerosity: The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all
18
members is impracticable. It is estimated that 50,000,000 Facebook users’ personal
19
information was harvested in the actions complained of in this Complaint. The disposition
20
of the individual claims of the respective class members will benefit the parties and the
21
Court and will facilitate judicial economy.
22
63. Ascertainability: The class members are ascertainable through records kept
23
by Defendants.
24
64. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the members of the class. The
25
claims of each class member arises from the same course of uniform misconduct by
26
Defendants. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of
27
themselves and the class members based on the same operative facts.
28
-9-
1 65. Existence of Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact: This

2 action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions
3 affecting individual class members. These common questions include, but are not limited
4 to, the following:
5 a. Whether Plaintiffs and class members’ personal information was obtained
6 by Cambridge;
7 b. Whether Cambridge improperly obtained Plaintiffs’ and class members’
8 personal information without authorization or by exceeding its
9 authorization;
10 c. Whether Facebook represented that Plaintiffs’ and class members’
11 personal information would be protected from disclosure absent their
12 consent;
13 d. Whether Facebook’s data security measures were lax and exposed
14 Plaintiffs and class members to the egregious breach of privacy and trust
15 alleged in the Complaint;
16 e. Whether the egregious breach of privacy and trust alleged in the Complaint
17 was foreseeable by Facebook;
18 f. Whether Facebook intentionally exposed Plaintiffs’ and class members’
19 personal information to Cambridge;
20 g. Whether Defendants violated the Stored Communications Act;
21 h. Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ and class members’ privacy
22 rights; and
23 i. Whether Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to actual, statutory, or
24 other forms of damages.
25 66. Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal
26 rights sought to be enforced by this action and similar or identical questions of statutory
27 and common law, as well as similar or identical injuries, are involved. Individual
28
- 10 -
1 questions, if any, pale by comparison to the numerous common questions that dominate
2 this action.
3 67. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the
4 class because their interests do not conflict with the interest of the class members. Plaintiffs
5 will fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the class
6 members and Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the class members. Plaintiffs have
7 retained counsel who are competent and experienced in class action litigation, and who
8 possess specific expertise in privacy and data breach litigation.
9 68. Superiority: The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to
10 Plaintiffs and the class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and
11 appropriate procedure to afford relief for themselves and the class for the wrongs alleged.
12 The damages and/or harm suffered by individual class members is relatively modest
13 compared to the burden and expense that individual litigation of their claims against
14 Defendants would entail. It would thus be virtually impossible for Plaintiffs and class
15 members, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them.
16 Absent class litigation, class members and the general public would likely not recover, or
17 would not likely have the chance to recover for the damages and/or harm caused to them.
18 COUNT I
Violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq.
19
Plaintiffs v. Defendants
20
21 69. The allegations in the previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by
22 reference.
23 70. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) provides a cause of action against
24 any “person” who “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which
25 an electronic communication service is provided,” “or who intentionally exceeds
26 authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters or prevents authorized
27 access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such a
28 system.” 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a).
- 11 -
1 71. The SCA also provides a cause of action against an entity providing
2 an electronic communication service for “knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity
3 the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service.” 18 U.S.C. §
4 2702(a)(1).
5 72. The statute defines “electronic storage” as “any temporary, intermediate
6 storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission
7 thereof” and “any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service
8 for purposes of backup protection of such communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17).
9 73. The SCA defines “person” to include “any individual, partnership,
10 association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6).
11 74. The SCA defines “electronic communication service” as “any service which
12 provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.”
13 18 U.S.C. § 2510(15).
14 75. Congress passed the SCA as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy
15 Act of 1986 (“ECPA”).8 As the titles suggest, the primary purpose of these laws was to
16 bolster privacy protections for emerging forms of electronic communication.
17 76. The Senate Report on the ECPA and SCA acknowledged that a combination
18 of constitutional provisions, case law, and statutes afforded high levels of protection
19 against interception to letters sent through the mail and voice communications transmitted
20 via common carriers.9
21 77. By contrast, in 1986 there were “no comparable Federal statutory standards to
22 protect the privacy and security of communications transmitted by new noncommon carrier
23 communications services or new forms of telecommunications and computer
24
25
26
8
27 Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §
2510 et seq.)
28 9
S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 5, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3359.
- 12 -
1 technology.”10 The Senate report found that this gap resulted in legal uncertainty,
2 discouraged the use of innovative systems, and “probably encourages unauthorized users
3 to obtain access to communications to which they are not a party.”11
4 78. Therefore the purpose of the ECPA and the SCA was to fill this gap; “to
5 protect the privacy of our citizens,” while maintaining “a fair balance between the privacy
6 expectations of American citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies.”12
7 79. Facebook is an electronic communications service provider within the
8 meaning of the SCA.
9 80. Facebook and Cambridge are persons within the meaning of the SCA.
10 81. Cambridge intentionally accessed without authorization or intentionally
11 exceeded authorized access to facilities through which electronic communication systems
12 were provided when it used the YDL App to steal millions of Facebook users’ personal
13 information without their consent.
14 82. Facebook intentionally exceeded its authorized access and thereby altered
15 authorized access when it, through Graph API, transmitted millions of Facebook users’
16 personal information to the YLD App without the users’ consent.
17 83. Facebook also knowingly divulged to Cambridge, through Graph API, the
18 contents of tens of millions of its users’ communications while in electronic storage by
19 Facebooks service.
20 84. Plaintiffs and class members are aggrieved persons under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a)
21 because Defendants accessed their personal information and communications without
22
23
24
10
25 Id.
11
Id.
26 12
Id.; see also id. at 3 (explaining that the specific purpose of the SCA is to address
27 “access to stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records” and to
“protect privacy interests in personal and proprietary information, while protecting the
28 Government’s legitimate law enforcement needs.”).
- 13 -
1 Plaintiffs’ or class members’ knowledge or consent, or in excess of any authorization given

2 to Defendants by Plaintiffs and class members.
3 85. Defendants’ violations caused Plaintiffs and class members concrete and
4 particularized harm because Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ personal privacy was
5 invaded.
6 86. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(b) and (c), Plaintiffs and class members are entitled
7 to equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate, actual damages or statutory
8 damages of $1,000 whichever is higher, costs and attorneys’ fees.
9 87. Additionally, because Defendants violations were willful and/or intentional,
10 Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to punitive damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c).
11 COUNT II
Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion
12
Plaintiffs v. Facebook
13 Randy Nunez v. Cambridge Analytica
14
88. The allegations in the previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by
15
reference.
16
89. The California Constitution expressly provides for a right to privacy: “All
17
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are
18
enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
19
and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” California Constitution,
20
Article 1, Section 1 (emphasis added).
21
90. California common law, likewise, recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy.
22
91. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of all class members in
23
the United States against Facebook pursuant to Facebook’s terms and conditions, which
24
designates California law as the sole applicable law governing the relationship between
25
Facebook and its users.
26
92. Plaintiff Randy Nunez also brings this claim against Cambridge, individually
27
and on behalf of the California subclass.
28
- 14 -
1 93. Facebook’s terms of use in effect during the matters complained of herein
2 provided, inter alia, that user’s personal information would not be released to third-parties
3 without the user’s consent.
4 94. Facebook’s users reasonably believed that they could interact with their
5 family, friends, and coworkers through Facebook’s social media platform without their
6 personal information being stolen by third-parties.
7 95. Plaintiffs and class members had an interest in precluding the dissemination
8 and/or misuse of their personal information and in conducting their personal activities
9 without intrusion or interference, including the right to not have their personal information
10 stolen and used against them in psychological operations.
11 96. Defendants intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ and class members’ private
12 life, seclusion, or solitude, without consent.
13 97. Defendants’ conduct is highly objectionable to a reasonable person and
14 constitutes an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.
15 98. Plaintiffs and class members were harmed by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
16 COUNT III
Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion
17
Gennock v. Cambridge Analytica
18
99. The allegations in the previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by
19
reference.
20
100. Pennsylvania common law recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy. The
21
right to privacy is also embodied in multiple sections of the Pennsylvania constitution.
22
101. Plaintiff Gennock brings this claim against Cambridge, individually and on
23
behalf of the Pennsylvania subclass.
24
102. Facebook’s terms of use in effect during the matters complained of herein
25
provided, inter alia, that user’s personal information would not be released to third-parties
26
without the user’s consent.
27
28
- 15 -
1 103. Facebook’s users reasonably believed that they could interact with their
2 family, friends, and coworkers through Facebook’s social media platform without their
3 personal information being stolen by third-parties.
4 104. Plaintiffs and class members had an interest in precluding the dissemination
5 and/or misuse of their personal information and in conducting their personal activities
6 without intrusion or interference, including the right to not have their personal information
7 stolen and used against them as psychological operations.
8 105. Cambridge intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ and class members’ private
9 life, seclusion, or solitude, without consent.
10 106. Cambridge’s conduct is highly objectionable to a reasonable person and
11 constitutes an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.
12 107. Plaintiffs and class members were harmed by Cambridge’s wrongful conduct.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 108. Wherefore, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the
15 class, requests that this Honorable Court award relief in their favor and against Defendants
16 as follows:
17 a. Certifying the classes and designating the named Plaintiffs as the class
18 representatives and their counsel as class counsel;
19 b. Declaring Defendants’ conduct unlawful and enjoining the conduct
20 described herein;
21 c. Awarding Plaintiffs and the proposed class members actual, statutory, and
22 punitive damages;
23 d. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and
24 e. Such other relief as the Court may deem just, necessary, or appropriate.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
- 16 -
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
3
4 Date: March 27, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
5
6 /s/ Todd D. Carpenter
Todd D. Carpenter (CA 234464)
7 [email protected]
Brittany C. Casola (CA 306561)
8 [email protected]
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
9 KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
10 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
11 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
[email protected]
12
Gary F. Lynch (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed)
13 [email protected]
Kelly K. Iverson (Pro Hac Vice to be
14 Filed)
[email protected]
15 CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
16 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
17 Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
18
Karen Hanson Riebel (Pro Hac Vice to be
19 Filed)
[email protected]
20 Katie M. Baxter-Kauf (Pro Hac Vice to be
Filed)
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
22 P.L.L.P.
Suite 2200
23 100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
24 Telephone (612) 339-6900
25
Arthur M. Murray (Pro Hac Vice to be
26 Filed)
[email protected]
27 Caroline W. Thomas (Pro Hac Vice to be
Filed)
- 17 -
1 MURRAY LAW FIRM

650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
2 New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
3 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
4
Kenneth W. DeJean (Pro Hac Vice to be
5 Filed)
[email protected]
6 Adam R. Credeur (Pro Hac Vice to be
Filed)
7 [email protected]
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W.
8 DEJEAN
417 W. University Avenue (70506)
9 Post Office Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
10 Phone (337) 235-5294
Facsimile (337)235-1095
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-01891 Document 1-1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Ashley Gennock and Randy Nunez Facebook, Inc. and Cambridge Analytica
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Lawrence County, PA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Todd Carpenter, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619-762-1900
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 Patent─Abbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
18 U.S.C. 2701, et seq
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Stored Communications Act
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ 5,000,001.00 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 03/27/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Todd D. Carpenter
Print Save As... Reset

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 3:18-cv-01891 Document 1-1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment).”
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Gennock & Nunez V Facebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gennock & Nunez V Facebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gennock & Nunez V Facebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:18-cv-01891 Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 18

1 Todd D. Carpenter (CA 234464)

1 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

1 65. Existence of Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact: This

1 Plaintiffs’ or class members’ knowledge or consent, or in excess of any authorization given

1 MURRAY LAW FIRM

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 03/27/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Todd D. Carpenter

Print Save As... Reset

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

You might also like