Under-attack Instagram gets class action lawsuit for Christmas

Under-attack Instagram gets class action lawsuit for Christmas Image courtesy of Asbury Asbury The story so far: on December 17, Instagram announced a change to its Terms of Service (TOS), to take effect on the 16th of January, in which the company would reserve the right to use customers’ photos with self-awarded impunity. In other words, Instagram would be able to distribute users’ content to anyoneâ€"think iStockPhoto, sans permission or compensation of image creators. The news inspired such a negative reaction that Systrom recanted the announcement within hours, insisting that “Instagram has no intention of selling your photos, and we never did.” A December 19 revision of the impending TOS is available on Instagram’s blog. Damage control has been meager at best. Rival companies point out that they never even hinted at appropriating user photos. And then, of course, there’s the lawsuit. Funes’s legal complaint is available for reading on scribd.com. Filed December 21, it condemns both the original and final versions of the new TOS and states that users “agree that a business or other entity may pay [Instagram] to display [user’s] username, likeness, photos…and/or actions…without any compensation to [the user].” This clause was removed in the update, but Funes is unappeased. Why? A few reasons, actually. Although users who disagree with the finalized TOS may “opt out” by deleting their accounts prior to the January 19 effect date, their “materials and data may persist and appear within the Service,” particularly if others have shared them. Additionally, Instagram absolves itself of blame for “damages, losses, or injuries that arise out of Instagram’s acts,” and that a user forfeits “rights to enjoin or restrain” the company. Should a conflict arise, as of the 19th, neither company nor user will be able to file a class-action lawsuit. Finally, by accepting the new terms, users concede that they “may be waiving rights with respect to claims that are at this time unknown or unsuspected”. Essentially, the plaintiff argues that Instagram is trying to create a loophole through which it can gain control of users’ photos, while protecting said loophole with language that reduces complaints to tiffs that must be settled individually, so as not to threaten the companys reputation. What does this mean? I’ve tried my best to translate the legalese: 1. Technically, Instagram users own their photos, but if an account is deleted, Instagram has license to its content. Think of the agreements you click through when installing software: as a licensee, you have fairly extensive use of program content. If a friend has sent around a picture of you shotgunning beer in a banana suit, the situation is out of your hands, even if you delete your account. 2. After the new TOS take effect, Instagram can add policies and practices that users don’t agree withâ€"but, since the company renounced responsibility for complaints “at this time unknown”, the plaintiff won’t have much to stand onâ€"and if they do, they won’t be able to team up with like-minded citizens in a class-action suit. To be fair, neither can Instagram. Then again, when Mark Zuckerberg owns your company, you don’t necessarily need to take class action in the first place. Hmm. Theres a delicate balance between running a savvy, self-protecting business and misleading consumers. Either way, you might want to keep the banana suit pics to yourself for now.