Now, it’s Facebook’s turn: The social network filed its rebuttal to the filing by Paul Ceglia’s legal team on Facebook’s request to dismiss Ceglia’s lawsuit, inferring that Ceglia is using his request for comparable time for discovery as a delaying tactic, and saying that the plaintiff and his lawyers continue to ignore the most compelling piece of evidence in the case.
In yet another example of our speedy justice system, Facebook was declared the winner of a lawsuit originally filed in December 2008 against Power Ventures and Power.com, which accessed and stored users’ login information without permission.
As Paul Ceglia’s attempt to claim half of Facebook continues to rapidly crumble, his financial obligations may rise just as quickly: The social network’s lawyers are going after Ceglia for more than $84,000 in legal fees.
The trademark suit filed by Timelines.com against Facebook, and the countersuit by the social network, are scheduled to go to trial sometime in 2013, but the two sides are still talking.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, especially when the woman allegedly decides to create a fake Facebook profile to slander her ex-boyfriend.
We’re surprised that a site called Shagbook hasn’t already been sued out of existence. The dating site started in 2006 and we’re only just now hearing from a publicist for the defense against the standard Facebook trademark lawsuit.
A juror and an aquitted defendant, who decided to chat via Facebook about a drug and corruption trial last August, were found guilty of contempt of court. The case just might be the U.K.’s first prosecution for contempt of court involving social media.
A couple in New York is suing Facebook after a paramedic posted photos of their daughter’s dead body on the social networking site.
A personal injury lawsuit settled out of court after a New Brunswick judge ordered the plaintiff’s lawyer to seize her Facebook photos through a third party.
A Long Island man has filed a $500,000 lawsuit against Facebook for closing his account without warning, and the plaintiff is calling this a case of religious discrimination.