• All Share : 47879.45
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Top 40 : 3795.47
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Financial 15 : 14216.55
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Industrial 25 : 57515.62
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • ZAR/USD : 10.9311
    UP 0.07%
    ZAR/GBP : 17.5880
    UP 0.10%
    ZAR/EUR : 13.8531
    UP 0.04%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1011
    UP 0.10%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.6172
    UP 0.23%

  • Gold : 1130.5000
    DOWN -8.15%
    Platinum : 1887.0000
    UP 51.57%
    Silver : 17.6000
    UP 2.44%
    Palladium : 585.5000
    DOWN -24.35%
    Brent Crude Oil : 86.130
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Sat Oct 25 13:12:35 SAST 2014

Instagram furor triggers first class action lawsuit

Reuters | 25 December, 2012 15:26
Roshan Nebhrajani poses with a portrait taken of her on Instagram on her iPhone. Rosebank.
Image by: ALON SKUY / THE TIMES

Facebook’s Instagram photo sharing service has been hit with what appears to be the first civil lawsuit to result from changed service terms that prompted howls of protest last week.

In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court on Friday, a California Instagram user leveled breach of contract and other claims against the company.

“We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously,” Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.

Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.

In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.

The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.

The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.

However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying “that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.” It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause.

The lawsuit, filed by San Diego-based law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk, says customers who do not agree with Instagram’s terms can cancel their profile but then forfeit rights to photos they had previously shared on the service.

“In short, Instagram declares that ‘possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don’t like it, you can’t stop us,’” the lawsuit says.

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had criticized Instagram, said he was pleased that the company rolled back some of the advertising terms and agreed to better explain their plans in the future.

However, he said the new terms no longer contain language which had explicitly promised that private photos would remain private. Facebook had engendered criticism in the past, Opsahl said, for changing settings so that the ability to keep some information private was no longer available.

“Hopefully, Instagram will learn from that experience and refrain from removing privacy settings,” Opsahl said.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.