A federal judge has swiped left on a man’s attempt to bring a defamation lawsuit against Facebook and a group of users whom he alleged created a page to share cautionary tales about potential romantic partners.
“The realities of modern dating are complicated,” U.S. District Judge Sunil Harjani wrote to open his May 13 opinion dismissing the complaint of Nikko D’Ambrosio. “In the absence of knowing a potential date personally, or having a friend or acquaintance vouch for them, some women have turned to online women-only groups like ‘Are We Dating the Same Guy?’ where they ask other women for information about men they are considering dating. While many posts in these groups are benign, occasionally women respond with decidedly negative ‘red flags’ about the man in question. But rarely do such statements and unsuccessful dating forays end up in federal court.”
D'Ambrosio’s complaint alleged privacy violations and defamation, doxxing, product liability and unjust enrichment, among other claims, with the targets including “anyone remotely associated with those posts for all possible, imaginable claims, including the woman who dated him and her parents, women commenting on posts, the operators of the Facebook group and Facebook itself.”
Harjani said “Are We Dating the Same Guy?” — owned by Spill The Tea — operates across multiple social media platforms, uses geographic subdivisions and has a Chicago subgroup with about 100,000 members on the invitation-only Facebook site. The complaint includes posts from a woman who went on a couple of dates with D’Ambrosio who included screenshots of their text interactions - including an angry profane text allegedly sent by D'Ambrosio to that woman - then took down the posts and reshared them anonymously. D’Ambrosio also alleged another group member posted a news article about a different man charged with criminal sexual assault in an attempt to link him to those allegations.
D'Ambrioso alleged a violation of the Illinois Right to Publicity Act, accusing Facebook of “misappropriating his identity and likeness for commercial purposes,” Harjani wrote, but the complaint contains no link to attempts to sell, advertise or promote a product or otherwise raise money.
“Instead, D’Ambrosio’s theory is that a third-party post about him necessarily drove user engagement and therefore Meta’s advertising revenue. But that does not equate to Meta using D’Ambrosio’s identity as an advertisement. Accepting that argument would expand the bounds of the IRPA to include any time a website includes an individual’s identity and happens to contain separate advertisements. This is not what the IRPA protects against," Harjani said.
Harjani likewise rejected the defamation allegations, noting defendants have a nondefamatory interpretation of the contested posts and further that “attacks on personal integrity and character are not actionable, the statements are nonactionable opinions and D’Ambrosio failed to identify any false statements.”
D’Ambrosio correctly alleged imputing the commission of a crime could rise to the level of defamation, Harjani said, but “fails to address that this news article clearly is not talking about him.” He added the names and images are different and the poster didn’t state D’Ambrosio is the criminal suspect or that he was otherwise accused of the same crimes. As to all the other contested statements, D’Ambrosio didn’t identify which are false, undercutting his defamation claims and, by extension, the invasion of privacy by false light allegation.
Harjani rejected the doxxing claim as D’Ambrosio didn’t allege disclosure of personally identifiable information or the likelihood of physical harm.
“Since D’Ambrosio never alleged that his full name was posted in the group and instead attached copies of the posts that do not include his full name, the court concludes that only his first name was posted in the group,” Harjani wrote. “D’Ambrosio centers his claim on the publishing of his photograph, but does not explain how this qualifies as linkable information under the statute.”
D'Ambrosio did not respond to Meta’s defense of the strict products liability claim, specifically that the company provides a service, not a product, and the complaint didn’t allege physical harm. Regardless of waiving his right to contest the point, Harjani wrote, D’Ambrosio did fail to state a claim.
He likewise waived the right to contest Meta’s defense of the negligence claim but would’ve failed anyway, Harjani continued, because even though the question of what duty Facebook owes to its users is legally open, D’Ambrosio didn’t allege he has an account on any Meta service.
“Like many of the other claims, D’Ambrosio does not respond to any of Meta’s arguments or defend his negligent entrustment claim in his response brief,” Harjani continued. “Further, even if the court were to consider this claim on its merits, it most surely fails.”
Harjani concluded by noting the unjust enrichment claim fails because it cannot stand alone and said there was likewise no need to consider Meta’s invocation of Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity because the complaint had no plausible claims for relief. Given the limited differences between D’Ambrosio’s first and second amended complaints, Harjani dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Harjani was represented in the action by attorney Marc P. Trent, of the Trent Law Firm, of Chicago.
Defendants have been represented by attorneys Andrew D. Finke, of Blaine & Vanzant, of Evanston; Gary Feinerman, and others with the firm of Latham & Watkins, of Chicago and San Francisco; and Amanda N. Catalano and others with the firm of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, of Chicago.