• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, September 26, 2024

Meta is pressing a judge to reject Amherst University professor Ethan Zuckerman's request for an order preventing the company from suing over a research tool designed to study how Facebook's algorithms affect people's health.

“Among the many reasons why the court should decline plaintiff’s invitation, the most important is that his grievances are not ripe,” Meta writes in papers filed this week with U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco.

Meta adds that Zuckerman hasn't yet released the tool, and that there's no guarantee that the tool -- a browser extension dubbed Unfollow Everything 2.0 -- will operate as expected.

“Until the extension actually exists, Meta cannot determine how it might respond,” the company adds.

The company's argument comes in a legal battle that began in May, when Zuckerman sought a judicial declaration that Unfollow Everything 2.0 doesn't violate Facebook's terms of service or anti-hacking laws, and an injunction that would prohibit Meta from suing over the extension.

Unfollow Everything 2.0 is designed to allow Facebook users to automatically unfollow friends, groups and pages, and then decide which people or groups to manually follow again. Downloaders would be able to opt in to Zuckerman's proposed study, which aims to collect anonymized data in order to study the impact of Facebook's news feed on users' well-being.

He alleged in the complaint that he hadn't yet released the extension because Meta previously threatened legal action over similar tool issued in 2021 by developer Louis Barclay.

In July, Meta urged Corley to dismiss the case as premature.

Zuckerman's lawyers countered in court papers filed late last month that the case is timely because he has “a real and reasonable apprehension that Meta will take legal action against him if he releases Unfollow Everything 2.0.”

But Meta argues in its newest papers that Zuckerman's “abstract” fears of legal action aren't enough to warrant a lawsuit.

“There is no substantial, immediate, or real controversy, not least because 'Unfollow Everything 2.0' is hypothetical,” the company says.

Meta adds that its terms of service as well as computer hacking laws “focus on specific, technical conduct relating to the interaction between data, computers, and servers.”

“Even if plaintiff could allege sufficient details about a nonexistent tool he plans to invent to allow an initial hypothetical adjudication, readjudication would be required if the tool were to operate differently than suggested,” Meta adds.

The dispute has drawn the attention of outside organization, including the civil rights groups Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, and Center for Democracy & Technology.

They say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed earlier this month that Zuckerman's tool is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- an argument he also raised in his complaint.

In addition to immunizing web publishers from lawsuits over users' posts, Section 230 protects interactive computer services providers that offer technology that restricts “objectionable” material.

The civil rights groups contend Unfollow Everything 2.0 is covered by that provision -- essentially arguing that certain Facebook pages or groups are objectionable to users, and the extension prevents that material from appearing in the newsfeed.

“Unfollow Everything 2.0 is a prime example of user-empowerment technology that can help people using the internet control their online experiences,” the groups write.

Corley is expected to hold a hearing in the matter in November.