Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 William Most (State Bar No. 279100) LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 637 Kerlerec St. New Orleans, LA 70116 Phone: 504-509-5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007) Sarah M.K. Hoffman (State Bar No. 308568) AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP 828 San Pablo Ave., Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 Phone: 916-202-3018 Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com Email: smkh@atalawgroup.com 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 Case No. SUZANNE-JULIETTE MOBLEY, KAREN SAVAGE, VICTOR ONUOHA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 20 21 vs. FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1-9999, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION, JURY DEMAND (Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.) Defendants. Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: Trial Date: Action Filed: November 3, 2016 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 14 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their 2 3 attorneys, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this Complaint 4 against Defendants as follows: 5 I. 6 INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, penalties, and monetary 7 damages under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), and Title VII of the 8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) to redress discrimination based on race, color, 9 religion, sex, familial status, and national origin. 10 2. Defendant Facebook is a social-networking site that boasts more than one billion users 11 worldwide, making it the largest online social network in the world. As alleged more fully below, 12 Facebook has operated and is operating an advertising platform (“Ad Platform”) that publishes, and 13 causes to be published, discriminatory and illegal housing and employment advertisements. By 14 clicking on a button labeled “Exclude People,” ad buyers—here Doe Defendants 1-9,999—can 15 prevent their ads from being displayed to users matching characteristics such as “African American 16 (US),” “Asian American (US),” or “Immigrant.” 17 18 19 3. "Exclude People" mechanism. There are legal, desirable uses for such functionalities. Plaintiffs seek to end only the illegal, proscribed uses of these functions. 20 4. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 This lawsuit does not seek to end Facebook’s Ad Platform, nor even to get rid of the Defendants’ conduct should be declared unlawful and enjoined, and appropriate penalties and monetary damages should be awarded. II. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Karen Savage is a resident of New York City, New York. She is a reporter and is in the process of getting a degree in journalism from the City University of New York. She is a Facebook user and a single, divorced mother of four children. In the past year, she has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing so has looked at Facebook advertisements. 6. Plaintiff Victor Onuoha is a resident of Gretna, Louisiana. He is an African-American mental health counselor. In the past year he has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing so has looked at Facebook advertisements. 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 1 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 14 1 7. Plaintiff Suzanne-Juliette Mobley is a resident of New Orleans, Orleans. She is African- 2 American and a Community Engagement Manager. She is a divorced mother of one child. In the past 3 year, she has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing 4 so has looked at Facebook advertisements. 5 8. Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is an American corporation, headquartered at 6 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025, incorporated under the laws of the State of 7 Delaware, with California registered agent for service of process of Corporation Service Company— 8 d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, 9 California, 95833. Facebook owns and operates an online social networking website that allows its 10 users to communicate with each other through the sharing of text, photograph, and video. Part of 11 Facebook’s website is an Ad Platform that allows users to pay money to have Facebook display 12 advertisements to other users. 13 9. Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 are entities that have used Facebook’s Ad Platform to illegally 14 discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, with 15 advertisements for employment or housing. 16 17 III. JURISDICTIONAND VENUE 10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 3613(a), this Court 18 has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiffs and the Class that arise under the Fair 19 Housing Act, and Civil Rights Act of 1964. 20 11. Further, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this putative nationwide class action 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because 22 the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in 23 which some members of the Class are citizens of states different than Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1332(d)(2)(A). Therefore, both elements of diversity jurisdiction under CAFA are present, and this Court 25 has jurisdiction. 26 12. 27 28 29 30 31 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook because Facebook owns and operates a business that is headquartered in California, and because it conducts substantial business throughout California. 13. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as Facebook is headquartered in this district. 14. Venue is also proper in this district pursuant to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which governs the agreement between Plaintiffs and Facebook and which states in 2 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 14 1 pertinent part that Plaintiffs “will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) . . . relating to . . . 2 Facebook exclusively in a state or federal court located in Santa Clara County.” 3 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND A. Fair Housing Act 4 5 15. The Fair Housing Act, 42. U.S.C. 3601 et seq., declares that “[i]t is the policy of the 6 United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United 7 States.” 8 9 16. To this end, among other prohibitions, the Fair Housing Act provides that “it shall be unlawful . . . (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, 10 statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any 11 preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, . . . familial status, or 12 national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.” 13 14 17. City of Edmonds v. Wash. St. Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1994). B. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 15 16 The Fair Housing Act is a “broad remedial statute” that courts “generously construe.” 18. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that: 17 a. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to 18 hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual 19 with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, 20 because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, 21 segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which 22 would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or 23 otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, 24 color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 25 b. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse 26 to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of 27 his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any 28 individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 29 2000e-2(b). 30 c. “Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is 31 established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 3 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 14 1 national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other 2 factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m); and, d. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, 3 4 employment agency, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or 5 other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to print or publish or 6 cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by 7 such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by 8 such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by 9 such an employment agency, or relating to admission to, or employment in, any program 10 established to provide apprenticeship or other training by such a joint labor-management 11 committee, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based 12 on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement 13 may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, 14 sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational 15 qualification for employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b). 16 V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17 A. 18 19. Facebook’s Advertising Platform Facebook generates the majority of its revenue through the sale of advertising to 19 organizations and individuals. In the second quarter of 2016 alone, Facebook generated $6.239 billion 20 in advertising revenue. 21 20. As set out in more detail below, Facebook’s advertising platform allows advertisers to 22 target and exclude specific Facebook users to see their advertisements. This targeting and exclusion is 23 based on Facebook users’ “affinity” groups, which Facebook uses to identify a person’s ethnic, gender 24 and other affinities based on their Facebook activity. A user’s affinity may be determined by their 25 Facebook profile and interactions with organizations and other users on Facebook. 26 27 28 21. Based on a user’s affinity groups, Facebook builds a profile of that user that is then used to determine, among other things, the advertisements the user is exposed to. 22. Facebook describes “affinity” as: “a relationship like a marriage, as a natural liking, and 29 as a similarity of characteristics. We are using the term “Multicultural Affinity” to describe the quality 30 of people who are interested in and likely to respond well to multicultural content. What we are 31 referring to in these affinity groups is not their genetic makeup, but their affinity to the cultures they 32 are interested in. The Facebook multicultural targeting solution is based on affinity, not ethnicity. This 4 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 14 1 provides advertisers with an opportunity to serve highly relevant ad content to affinity-based 2 audiences.” 3 23. Affinity groups act as a proxy for characteristics such as a user’s race, gender, family 4 status and national origin. Many of them are specifically classified as “demographics” and track 5 traditionally protected groupings (e.g., “African American (US)” and “Asian American (US).”) 6 B. 7 24. 8 Facebook’s Advertising Platform Enables Illegal Discrimination Facebook’s Ad Platform (found at https://www.facebook.com/business) allows for illegal discrimination in two steps. 9 25. First, Facebook’s Ad Platform 10 allows ad buyers to target their ads to specific 11 users seeking employment or housing. (See 12 Figure 1.) Targeting can be done by 13 “demographic,” “interest,” or “behavior.” For 14 example, the Ad Platform allows targeting of an 15 ad to the demographic “Renters”, or to users who 16 have expressed an interest in or like pages related 17 to “Buying a House,” “Job interview,” or “Job 18 hunting.” 19 26. Second, it allows ad buyers to click Figure 1. This screenshot shows options from the Facebook Ad Platform’s dropdown menus, allowing illegal discrimination. (Source: ProPublica.) 20 a button labeled “Exclude People” to prevent the ad 21 being shown to certain sets of users, (see Figure 1) 22 including users protected by the Fair Housing Act and 23 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see Figure 2). As Facebook’s Advertiser Help Center 24 explains,1 the platform “offers advanced features like the ability to exclude certain characteristics from 25 your target audience.” 26 27. Among the “characteristics” that can be excluded are “African American (US),” “Asian 27 American (US),” and four categories of “Hispanic (US).” The platform also allows exclusion or 28 targeting based on familial status, by excluding demographics: “Divorced,” “Parents (All),” and 29 “Expectant parents.” It also allows exclusion based on sex by allowing exclusion of “Moms.” It allows 30 exclusion based on religion by excluding users who are part of the interest categories of “Christian,” 31 1 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/182371508761821 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 5 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 14 1 “Muslim,” or “Sunni Islam.” And it allows exclusion based on national origin by allowing exclusion 2 based on “Expat (All),” which is defined by Facebook as “People whose original country of residence 3 is different from the current country/countries selected above.” 4 28. 5 There is no option in Facebook’s platform to exclude the “demographic” of White or Caucasian Americans from the target audience. 6 29. 7 Table 1, below, is a non-exclusive list of the characteristics on Facebook’s ad platform that can be targeted to tailor an advertisement for housing and employment. 8 Table 1: 9 10 Characteristics That Can Be Targeted So Ads to be Tailored to Housing and Employment 2 Housing Employment Renters Job seeking 13 First time homebuyer Currently seeking employment 14 Likely to move Job interview apartment finder Job hunting 17 New mover Looking for a New Job 18 $8,000 Home Buyer Tax Credit Unemployed Looking for work 11 12 15 16 19 20 30. 21 Table 2 is a non-exclusive list of the characteristics that can be excluded under the platform, allowing discrimination against members of protected categories. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2 Categories Facebook identifies as “Demographic” are unitalicized. Categories Facebook identifies as “Interests” and “Behaviors” are italicized. 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 6 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 8 of 14 1 Table 2: 2 3 Characteristics That Can Be Excluded, Allowing Discrimination Against the Protected Categories of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, Familial Status, and National Origin Race/Color Sex Familial Status Religion National Origin African American (US) Asian American (US) Working Women Family-based Households New parents Christian Expats (All)3 Christianity 8 Hispanic (US - All) Big-city moms Catholicism 9 Hispanic (US Bilingual) Hispanic (US English dominant) Hispanic (US Spanish dominant) African-American hair African-American Conservatives African-American Conservatives Indigenous peoples Corporate moms Housemate-based Households Civil Union Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin Immigrant Fit moms Divorced Mainline Expats (Mexico)4 Protestant Jewish culture Expats (Pakistan) Green moms Domestic Partnership Engaged Jews for Judaism Islam Expats (Philippines) Married Sunni Islam Expats (India) Single Shia Islam Expats (Ghana) Widowed Hinduism Expats (Japan) 19 Being Latino Soccer moms Parents Buddhism 20 Being Indian Stay-at-home moms Expectant parents Shinto Expats (Dominican Republic) Expats (Senegal) 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Moms Moms of grade school kids Moms of high school kids Moms of preschool kids New Moms Expats (Indonesia) 18 21 22 31. The content Facebook users see on their Facebook newsfeed is individualized based on 23 their user profile, including any affinity group Facebook has labeled them with. Any user that is 24 25 excluded from an advertisement based on one of the above affinity groups will not see the excluded 26 advertisement on their Facebook page. 27 32. 28 29 30 31 There is no mechanism to prevent ad buyers from purchasing ads related to employment/housing and then excluding based on these illegal characteristics. For example, “Expats (All)” has the description: “People whose original country of residence is different from the current country/countries selected above.” 3 “Expats (Mexico)” has the description: “People from Mexico living abroad.” All the other “Expats” follow this formula. 4 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 7 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 9 of 14 1 journalists Julia Angwin and Terry Parris Jr. of ProPublic purchased an advertisement targeted to 2 Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an African-American, Asian- 3 American or Hispanic “affinity.” The advertisement was approved by Facebook fifteen minutes after 4 5 6 they placed the order. 33. Facebook has publically committed to removing “an ad from our platform if the 7 government agency responsible for enforcing discrimination laws tells us that the ad reflects illegal 8 discrimination.” But no user can tell whether they are subject to illegal discrimination, because the 9 discrimination occurs with the ads they do not see. As a result, the problem will not be remedied 10 11 12 13 14 unless Facebook is forced to take additional action. 34. "Exclude People" mechanism. There are legal, desirable uses for such functionalities. Plaintiffs seek only to end the illegal, proscribed uses of these functions. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 15 16 17 35. All natural person Facebook users located within the United States who have not seen an employment- or housing-related advertisement on Facebook within the last two years because the ad’s buyer used the Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” functionality to exclude the class member based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 19 20 21 23 Plaintiffs bring this nationwide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of all members of the following Class: 18 22 This lawsuit does not seek to end Facebook’s Ad Platform, nor even to get rid of the 36. Not included in the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Facebook and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, current or former employees, and any entity in 24 25 which Facebook has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded 26 from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; any and all federal, state or local 27 governments, including but not limited to their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, 28 sections, groups, counsels and/or subdivisions; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this 29 litigation, as well as their immediate family members. 30 37. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed Class before 31 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 the Court determines whether certification is appropriate. 8 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 10 of 14 1 2 3 38. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than 156 million Facebook account holders in the United States. The number of separate individuals who are members of a protected class and used Facebook within two 4 5 6 7 8 years before the filing of this action is likely in the millions, and is identifiable and ascertainable based on Facebook’s records. 39. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class. These questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 9 a. Whether Facebook has caused to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling or employment that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, family status, or national origin. 10 11 12 b. Whether Doe Defendants have caused to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling or employment that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, family status, or national origin. 13 14 15 16 c. The amount of statutory damages that should be levied against Facebook and Doe Defendants; 17 18 19 d. Whether injunctive and/or declaratory relief against Facebook and Doe Defendants should be awarded; 20 e. Whether Facebook and Doe Defendants’ conduct was unlawful; and 21 f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to restitution. 22 23 40. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that Plaintiffs and the Class 24 used Facebook. Each of the Class Members was shown ads on Facebook that depended on the choices 25 the ad buyers made through the Ad Platform, including whether the ad buyer chose to use the 26 27 28 “Exclude People” button. Facebook and Doe Defendants further used or endeavored to use the contents of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ profile information and Facebook activity to generate ad 29 preferences for Plaintiffs and identify Plaintiffs with particular affiliate groups. Plaintiffs and Class 30 Members are entitled to declaratory relief, penalties, statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive 31 relief as a result of the conduct complained of herein. Moreover, upon information and belief, the 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 9 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 11 of 14 1 conduct complained of herein is systemic. Thus, the representative Plaintiffs, like all other Class 2 Members, face substantial risk of the same injury in the future. The factual basis of Facebook and 3 Doe Defendants’ conduct is common to all Class Members, and represents a common thread of 4 5 6 conduct resulting in injury to all members of the Class. 41. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs’ interests 7 do not conflict with the interests of the Class Members. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained 8 competent counsel experienced in federal and civil rights litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel will fairly and 9 adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and 23(g) are 10 11 12 13 14 satisfied. 42. Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), questions of law or fact common to the Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. 43. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 15 of this controversy. Arguably no Class Member could afford to seek legal redress individually for the 16 claims alleged herein. Therefore, absent a class action, the Class Members will continue to suffer 17 losses and Defendants’ misconduct will proceed without remedy. 18 44. Even if Class Members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court 19 20 system could not. Given the complex legal and factual issues involved, and considering that the Class 21 could number in the tens of millions or greater, individualized litigation would significantly increase 22 the delay and expense to all parties and to the Court. Individualized litigation would also create the 23 potential for inconsistent or contradictory rulings. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer 24 management difficulties, allows claims to be heard which may otherwise go unheard because of the 25 relative expense of bringing individual lawsuits, and provides the benefits of adjudication, economies 26 27 28 29 of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 45. The prosecution of individual actions by Class members would establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendants. 30 31 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 10 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 12 of 14 1 2 3 46. Defendants have acted in ways generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with regard to members of the Class as a whole. 4 5 6 47. The names and addresses of the Plaintiff putative class members are available from Facebook. To the extent required by law, notice will be provided to the prospective class members via 7 first class mail and/or by use of techniques in a form of notice that has been used customarily in 8 collective actions, subject to court approval. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 48. Defendants’ conduct as described above is unlawful, is capable of repetition, and will continue unless restrained and enjoined by the Court. The problem has been brought to Facebook’s attention by the press, and they have shown no indication of intent to change the functionality of the Ad Platform. 49. In the event that Class Members are not eligible for class certification under the federal rules, they request class certification under California law. 16 CAUSES OF ACTION 17 COUNT ONE 18 (Violations of the Fair Housing Act) 19 50. This claim incorporates all of the above. 20 51. Plaintiffs and Class Members are members of groups protected by the Fair Housing Act. 52. Through its Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” function, Defendant Facebook has made, 21 22 23 printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to sale or rental of 24 dwellings that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial 25 status, and national origin. 26 27 28 53. caused to be published, advertisements with respect to sale or rental of dwellings that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin. 29 30 Through the Ad Platform, ad buyer Doe Defendants have made, printed, published, and 54. Through the functioning of and publication upon Facebook’s Ad Platform, these 31 discriminatory advertisements have been withheld from Plaintiffs and Class Members based on 32 discriminatory selections under “Exclude People” by Doe Defendants. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 11 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 13 of 14 1 Members were harmed by not having the same opportunities for housing as Facebook users who were 2 not discriminated against. 3 COUNT TWO 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) 55. This claim incorporates all of the above. 56. Plaintiffs and Class Members are members of groups protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 57. Through its Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” function, Defendant Facebook has made, 10 printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to employment that 11 indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 12 13 14 15 16 58. Through the Ad Platform, ad buyer Doe Defendants have made, printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to employment that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 59. Through the functioning of, and publication upon, Facebook’s Ad Platform, these 17 discriminatory advertisements have been withheld from Plaintiffs and Class Members based on 18 discriminatory selections under “Exclude People” by Doe Defendants. 19 20 60. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed by not having the same opportunities for employment as Facebook users who were not discriminated against. 21 JURY DEMAND 22 23 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class they seek to represent, demand a jury on any issue so triable of right by a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, request judgment be entered against Defendants and that the Court grant the following: 1. An order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Plaintiffs are proper class representatives, that Plaintiffs’ attorneys be appointed Class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that Class notice be promptly issued (or under California law in the alternative); 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 12 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 14 of 14 2. Judgment against Defendants for Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ asserted causes of 3 3. Appropriate declaratory relief against Defendants; 4 4. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants; 5 5. An award of statutory damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members; 6 6. An award of civil penalties against Defendants; 7 7. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and 8 8. Any and all relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class may be entitled. 1 2 action; 9 10 Respectfully Submitted, 11 12 LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 13 14 15 16 /s/ William Most__________ William Most (State Bar No. 279100) Counsel for Plaintiffs Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha 17 18 AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP 19 20 21 22 /s/ Jason R. Flanders_______ Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007) Counsel for Plaintiffs Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave. Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706 916-202-3018 13 Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999