United States: District Of Columbia v. Facebook: General Consumer Protection Statute Can Serve As Vehicle For State Attorney General Seeking Redress For Data Privacy Violations

Last Updated: June 24 2019
Article by Matthew P. Denn and Amanda Fitzsimmons CIPP/US

On May 31, 2019, the District of Columbia Superior Court rejected Facebook's request to dismiss data privacy litigation brought by the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General based on its alleged role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, concluding that the DC Superior Court had jurisdiction over the case and the complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).1

The order demonstrates that general state consumer protection statutes can serve as a viable weapon in the arsenal of State Attorneys General who wish to challenge the reasonableness of entities' data privacy practices and disclosures. The order also demonstrates that Internet-based companies are not immune to jurisdiction in a foreign venue even when general personal jurisdiction does not exist.


Following reports arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General (DC OAG) filed suit under the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). Although a number of State Attorney General offices publicly announced in 2018 that they were either investigating or seeking additional information regarding potential state law violations arising from the Cambridge Analytica incident, the DC OAG was the first state AG to file any formal action.2

The DC complaint alleged that Facebook permitted third-party developers to access consumers' personal data and data concerning consumers' digital behavior in connection with offering mobile applications to Facebook users. Citing the Cambridge Analytica incident, where a researcher used a third-party application to harvest Facebook consumers' data and then sold the data to a political consulting firm, the complaint alleged that Facebook had (1) failed to effectively oversee and enforce its consumer protection policies, (2) failed to take reasonable steps to protect consumers' privacy by ensuring that the data was accounted for and deleted from Cambridge Analytica's databases once the incident was known to Facebook, and (3) failed to alert the public of the sale of users' data to Cambridge Analytica.4

Facebook moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the DC OAG's claims and the DC OAG failed to state a claim for relief. Alternatively, Facebook argued that the court should stay the case pending the resolution of a related multi-district litigation and the FTC investigation.

In denying Facebook's motion, the court specifically found that it was permitted by the federal Due Process Clause to exercise personal jurisdiction over Facebook and that the facts alleged by the DC OAG established that Facebook had made statements regarding its handling of personally identifiable information that could be reasonably interpreted by a consumer as misleading. The court also denied Facebook's request to stay the action.

Jurisdictional challenge

Although the court agreed with Facebook that it did not have general jurisdiction over Facebook, it found that exercising specific personal jurisdiction over Facebook would comport with the federal Due Process Clause.

The court acknowledged that "the relationship between a defendant's online activity and its susceptibility to suit in a foreign jurisdiction remains ill-defined," and that the personal jurisdiction issue was a "novel" one.5   It also reaffirmed that the mere fact that a DC resident had access to Facebook's website did not allow for the court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Facebook.  Nevertheless, the court concluded that personal jurisdiction existed because Facebook's online accessibility and transactions with the forum satisfied DC's minimum contacts standard.

First, the court concluded that Facebook's website qualified as a "storefront" in DC because Facebook engaged in continuous and systemic business activities with DC residents, which included its collection of DC residents' data, use of that data to target advertising to DC residents, harvesting of that data for third parties, filings with DC regulatory authorities, operation of an office in the District of Columbia, and acquiring substantial revenue from consumers in the District of Columbia .

The court also concluded that Facebook's conduct had an effect in DC because Facebook regularly made regulatory filings in the forum and allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to collect the personal data of 340,000 DC residents. 6

Application of the District of Columbia's General Consumer Protection Statute

Although the Federal Trade Commission's statutory authority to apply Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) – a general consumer protection statute – to data security issues was confirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015,7 the applicability of state general consumer protection statutes to data privacy and security issues has been relatively untested in the state courts. The DC v. Facebook decision is one of the first to conclude that a state general consumer protection statute can be applied to a data privacy issue.

In the complaint, the DC OAG alleged that Facebook had violated three subsets of the CPPA, which generally forbids any person from "engag[ing] in an unfair or deceptive trade practice," including specifically:

"(e) misrepresent[ing] as to a material fact which has a tendency to mislead;

(f) fail[ure] to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead;

(f-1) [u]s[ing] innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, which has a tendency to mislead[.]"

Although the DC CPPA generally forbids both unfair and deceptive practices, the DC OAG's complaint focused on specific provisions of the CPPA that involve deception. In doing so, the DC OAG avoided a parallel to the continuing debate taking place in the federal courts as to the scope of the FTC's authority to sanction "unfair" (as opposed to deceptive) conduct with respect to data security.8

In its order, the court found that the DC OAG had pled facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. First, the court concluded that the DC OAG had sufficiently alleged a "misrepresentation as to a material fact which has a tendency to mislead" in violation of subsection (e). In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the complaint's allegations that Facebook's general statements that it would protect the privacy of consumers' personal information and require the same of third parties were misleading because Facebook did not provide consumers with a clear explanation of how much responsibility Facebook undertook to protect consumers' personal data from third parties. The court also relied on the complaint's allegation that Facebook's statement that it may share some users' personal information with partner companies could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the information obtained by those partner companies would be limited to data that users had opted to share in their privacy settings, which the DC OAG alleged had not been the case with respect to the data shared with Cambridge Analytica.

Second, with respect to subsection (f) (failure to state a material fact when the failure has a tendency to mislead), the court found that two failures to disclose alleged by the Attorney General were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss: (i) Facebook's alleged failure to adequately warn its users that their personal data was improperly obtained, harvested, and used by third parties without the consumers' knowledge or consent, and (ii) Facebook's alleged failure to disclose to users that it allowed certain companies to override users' privacy settings and access consumers' personal data without their knowledge or consent. The court noted that the DC OAG had cited a series of cases finding that "fine print and obscurely placed disclosures, even if contained within a privacy policy, may be insufficient to give consumer reasonable notice that their personal information may be shared with third parties." Although the court did not indicate that it was relying on these cases in reaching its conclusion, the cases were likely cited in response to Facebook's argument that (in the court's words) "'every policy' contested by the DC OAG was disclosed to users in Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and Data Use Policy."

Finally, with respect to subsection (f-1) (use of innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, which has a tendency to mislead), the court found that four separate statements or omissions by Facebook, as alleged in the complaint, served as a basis to allow the claim to proceed:

  • Facebook's failure to explain to consumers how to control how information is shared with third-party applications and how to change privacy settings with respect to apps
  • Facebook's representations to consumers that it would protect the privacy of their personal information
  • Facebook's representation to consumers that it requires apps and third-party developers to respect the privacy of consumers' personal information, and
  • Facebook's representation to consumers that consumers' agreements with third-party apps would control how those apps used consumer data.9

Central to the court's decision was the fact that the decision was being made at the pleading stage, where the allegations are assumed true. Whether Facebook engaged in the alleged conduct and whether that conduct was deceptive is a question for a later day.

Lessons and implications

Although the District of Columbia Superior Court's opinion involved the application of some specific statutory provisions to a set of unique alleged facts, the case should be carefully examined by entities that collect data for a number of reasons.

  1. Although the case was decided under District of Columbia law, it provides a good example of the deferential standard that may be applied by some courts at the pleading stage to data privacy claims brought by State Attorneys General.
  2. The case also demonstrates how an error by a data collector can give rise to a consumer protection claim even in those instances where it does not violate a data privacy-specific statute. The court found that Facebook's after-the-fact failure to promptly notify consumers of the Cambridge Analytica incident might constitute an actionable failure to state a material fact under the consumer protection statute. Thus, businesses in states having similar general consumer protection statutes should consult with counsel about whether, even in the absence of a specific statutory obligation, they have a duty to notify consumers of data privacy issues.
  3. The case supports the proposition that in the data privacy/data security context even an express disclosure to consumers of a data sharing practice by a data collector may not be sufficient to defeat a claim under a consumer protection statute if the court finds that the disclosure is so unclear or inconspicuous that the full disclosure is rendered deceptive.
  4. The case is a reminder to businesses that if they are going to make affirmative claims to consumers that they will protect the privacy of the consumers' personal information, they should consult with counsel to ensure that they have not overstated those claims and have clearly articulated any exceptions to them.
  5. Finally, the case demonstrates that Internet-based companies can become susceptible to a court's jurisdiction by targeting advertising to residents of foreign venues.10


i The opinion can be found online at https://tinyurl.com/yya8t5jy.

2 The District of Columbia is not currently a state, but its Attorney General is treated as a State Attorney General by his peers and is the Vice President of the National Association of Attorneys General.

3 The summary of the complaint is drawn from the court's summation of the allegations in its May 31, 2019 Order.

4 The complaint also alleged more broadly that Facebook knew of other third-party applications that also improperly sold or used consumer data, that Facebook also failed to tame reasonable measures to enforce its policies in connection with those other third-party applications, and that Facebook failed to disclose to users when their data was improperly used by those other third-party applications Complaint at ¶ 43.

5 Facebook has asked for an interlocutory appeal of the court's decision regarding personal jurisdiction.

6 The court separately found that application of the District of Columbia long-arm statute was met under all four prongs of that statute.

7Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, 799 F.3d 236 (3d. Cir. 2015).

8 See, eg, Federal Trade Commission v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 2017 WL 4150873 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Court dismisses FTCA fairness claim against router and camera manufacturer while allowing deception claims to proceed).But see Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 295 F. Supp. 3d. 1140 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (allowing a data breach claim to proceed under the "unfairness" prong of Washington state's CPPA).

9 The court also declined to stay the case pending the outcome of ongoing multi-district litigation and an FTC investigation.

10Gullen v. Facebook.com, Inc., 2016 WL 245910 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions