Facebook’s $9.5 million class-action settlement over its Beacon a...

of Blockbuster’s. Blockbuster is accused along with Facebook of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act in the case, Lane v. Facebook, and by itself in a lawsuit in Marshall, Texas (WID April 21/08 p5). Seeborg rejected a motion to intervene by plaintiffs in the Marshall case. The judge told the parties in Lane that his final approval in part will hinge on showing that the terms are reasonable “specifically in light of the claims” under the video-privacy law, “and the apparent availability of statutory penalties thereunder in some circumstances.” Seeborg certified the class as including anyone whose behavior on a Facebook-connected site triggered Beacon from Nov. 6, 2007, until Friday. He scheduled a fairness hearing on the settlement for Feb. 26. Those who want to opt out of the class must do so by Feb. 1. Class lawyers have until Feb. 10 to submit their request for one- third of the $9.5 million as compensation, and it will be considered separately from the rest of the settlement, Seeborg said. Responding to the request of the Marshall plaintiffs in Harris v. Blockbuster to intervene in the Lane case, Seeborg said they had known of the San Jose suit since September 2008 and of a proposed settlement since May 2009 but waited months to file to intervene. Though the Harris plaintiffs contend they didn’t know Facebook was “attempting to indemnify Blockbuster for its violation of the VPPA” until they saw the proposed settlement, Seeborg said in a footnote they lacked evidence showing an “illicit agreement” between Facebook and Blockbuster. “An entirely innocent explanation for the fact that the release extends to all defendants [including Blockbuster] is that it would do Facebook little good to settle this dispute with plaintiffs while remaining at risk of being brought back into the litigation when plaintiffs then pursued claims against the remaining defendants,” he said. The Marshall plaintiffs can raise objections in Lane before the Feb. 1 deadline. As to their request to transfer the case to Marshall -- where the Blockbuster suit was filed four months before Lane -- Seeborg said their “first-filed” rights were operative “when they learned of the very existence of this lawsuit,” not a year later. “It would have been wholly unfounded to assume that a settlement agreement [in San Jose] would somehow carve out the subject matter of Harris,” Seeborg said. But he hinted he won’t rubber stamp the settlement just because he preliminarily approved it, creating “a perception of ‘momentum,'” in the Marshall plaintiffs’ words. Seeborg said he will review “all timely-filed objections, and not be influenced by previously granted preliminary approval.”