I just got the e-mail confirmed to be true by Snopes here: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/classaction/facebook.asp

I am wondering how many people got this.

Every single Facebook user?

Only those in/from America?

Only those whose likenesses were used? Do they even keep records of that? If this is the case, that means my likeness was actually used for some ad etc.

If you have Facebook, did you receive this notice?

As a Class Member I have the option to:

• Make a claim and get money if we win (up to $10).
• Exclude myself (and possibly file my own suit later).
• Object and say that the settlement is bad for X reasons.
• Attend a fairness hearing.
• Do nothing.

If you got the notice, which will you do?

If you did not receive the notice (either for not being on Facebook or for being on Facebook and not having had your likeness used), which option would you take?

L. Spiro

I got the notice. Still deciding whether it's worth the hassle to make the claim.

I didn't get such a notice. Still, Facebook had the lawsuit coming, what with its Terms of Service....

There needs to be something like this for Google. I haven't gotten one, but like Mike, not sure I would bother. Then again, I probably would, because it would be nice to teach all these guys a lesson about abusing our info. If none of us bother to claim it, then it doesn't make too big a difference to them in the end.

I didn't get one. From what I read a few days ago, doesn't the lawsuit settlement actually permit Facebook to continue to use users in ads without their knowledge, but it has to provide a

I mean, isn't this business as usual for Facebook? Make something absurdly ridiculous that nobody would opt-in for, get sued for a pittance (most of the money going to the lawyers anyway), make a donation to a few non-profits, implement an "opt out" option that's hard to find but keep the feature enabled by default knowing 99% of their users won't know it even exists? That's justice?

The lawyers should get paid, but not that much, and anyone who actually didn't appear in ads shouldn't get anything (What, do they have emotional trauma for the potential to have maybe appeared in an ad in a parallel universe?). Those who actually did appear in ads without their permission should get some serious cash ($10,000 to $20,000) - way more than $10 but definitely not millions. And Facebook ought to be fined absurdly hard, with the money going to non-profits that the judge chooses. Schools or the FSF or Ubuntu development or something.

I hate stupid lawsuits... but I hate companies getting easy settlements on legitimate lawsuits even more.

I didn't get one. From what I read a few days ago, doesn't the lawsuit settlement actually permit Facebook to continue to use users in ads without their knowledge, but it has to provide a

I mean, isn't this business as usual for Facebook? Make something absurdly ridiculous that nobody would opt-in for, get sued for a pittance (most of the money going to the lawyers anyway), make a donation to a few non-profits, implement an "opt out" option that's hard to find but keep the feature enabled by default knowing 99% of their users won't know it even exists? That's justice?

The lawyers should get paid, but not that much, and anyone who actually didn't appear in ads shouldn't get anything (What, do they have emotional trauma for the potential to have maybe appeared in an ad in a parallel universe?). Those who actually did appear in ads without their permission should get some serious cash ($10,000 to $20,000) - way more than $10 but definitely not millions. And Facebook ought to be fined absurdly hard, with the money going to non-profits that the judge chooses. Schools or the FSF or Ubuntu development or something.

I hate stupid lawsuits... but I hate companies getting easy settlements on legitimate lawsuits even more.

This is what I was trying to get at with my post: how corrupt Facebook is....

I’ve basically made up my mind.

As far as I know I was not used in an ad that was totally against my personal religion, which means an ad that supports alcohol or tobacco.

As someone who appears on TV regularly it is fairly obvious that I cannot be that level of hypocrite. I don’t mind that my face is exposed to the public, since that is what it means to be in acting in the first place.

However if I ever found out that my face or name was used to promote smoking or drinking, heads would roll.

Given how many things for which my “likeness” could be used, I doubt it was for smoking or drinking.

That basically means I don’t have a real problem here, and the frank fact is Facebook is the only way I keep in touch with my friends and family.

I would not be doing myself a service by trying to sue Facebook.

Great. Let’s all teach those corporates what it means to use our names in ads.

And now we can’t keep in touch with everyone we know. Good job, us. Way to be idiots.

L. Spiro

And now we can’t keep in touch with everyone we know.

You're talking as if Facebook is the only web-based community that exists. Those are my final thoughts on this subject; leaving this thread before it gets too out of control....

Yeah lol that sounds as if facebook invented human long range communication. Theres a whole bunch of other such websites, theres emails, you could use the phone and in worst case you can bring a letter to the post office.

Great. Let’s all teach those corporates what it means to use our names in ads.

And now we can’t keep in touch with everyone we know. Good job, us. Way to be idiots.

Regardless of what kind of service Facebook provides they still should not be using anyone's likeness or personal information for ads without that person's permission. And certainly without compensation.