Disclosure, endorsement, and identity in Social marketing

University of Illinois Law Review

Volumn 2009, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1105-1166

  Mcgeveran, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349583265     PISSN: 02769948     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (486)

1. The term "social marketing" has been applied to marketing for charitable or socially beneficial causes, such as anti-smoking or other health promotion campaigns.
2. See, e.g., Philip Kotler & Gerald Zaltman, Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change, 35 J. MARKETING, July 1971, at 3. For that reason, some have objected to the use of this nomenclature for marketing conducted through online social networks, as discussed in this Article.
3. See, e.g., Spare Change, Social Marketing vs. "Social Marketing" Smackdown, http://srcial-marketmg.corn/blog/2006/09/social- marketing-vssocial-marketing.html (Sept. 6, 2006). Notwithstanding any regrettable confusion that might result, "social marketing" has become the common and convenient name to refer to the techniques discussed in this Article, and I use it here.
4. As The New York Times explained it, "Yesterday, in a twist on word-of-mouth marketing, Facebook began selling ads that display people's profile photos next to commercial messages that are shown to their friends about items they purchased or registered an opinion about." Louise Story, Facebook Is Marketing Your Brand Preferences (with Your Permission), N. Y. Times, Nov. 7, 2007, at C5. For more information about the functioning of social networking, see infra Part LB. For more details about Facebook Ads in particular, see infra Part I. C.
5. "News Feed is a constantly updating list of stories about actions your friends have taken on Facebook." Facebook, Getting Started Guide, http://www.facebcok.com/help/new-user-guide.php? guide-section=explore-facebook (last visited May 26, 2009).
6. See Amy Morganstern, Comment, In the Spotlight: Social Network Advertising and the Right of Publicity, 12 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 181, 183-84 (2008) ;
7. Posting of Benjamin Googins to CA Security Advisor Research Blog, http://community.ca.com/blogs/securityadvisor/archive/2007/11/29/ facebook-socialads-going-too-far.aspx (Nov. 29, 2007, 14: 59).
8. Ellen S. Bass, Comment, A Right in Search of a Coherent Rationale-Conceptualizing Persona in a Comparative Context: The United States Right of Publicity and German Personality Rights, 42 U. S. F. L. Rev. 799, 800 n. 5 (2008).
9. See Brad Stone, Facebook Aims to Extend Its Reach Across the Web, N. Y. Times, Dec. 2, 2008, at B3;
10. Helen Leggatt, Facebook Tests 3 New Social Ad Formats, BizREPORT, Aug. 22, 2008, http://www.bizreport.com/2008/08/facebook-tests-3-new-social-ad- formats.html.
11. See Complaint at 1, Lane v. Facebook, Inc., No. C08 03845 (N. D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008), available at http://does.justia.com/cases/federal/district- courts/california/candce/5:2008cv03845/206085/1/[hereinafter Lane Complaint}.
12. See Lawrence Lessig, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace 86-90, 235-39 (1999).
13. See generally Eric Goldman, Online Word of Mouth and Its Implications for Trademark Law, in Trademark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research 404, 404 (Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Mark D. Janis eds., 2008) ;
14. Nicholas Negroponte & Pattie Maes, Electronic Word of Mouth, Wired, Oct. 1996, at 218.
15. Kineta H. Hung & Stella Yiyan Li, The Influence of eWOM on Virtual Consumer Communities: Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and Behavioral Outcomes, 47 J. ADVERTISING RES., 485, 485 (2007) ;
16. see also Ed Keller, Unleashing the Power of Word of Mouth: Creating Brand Advocacy to Drive Growth, 47 J. ADVERTISING RES., 448, 448 (2007) ('The evidence is becoming clear: word of mouth has now become the most important and effective communications channel.") ;
17. Word of Mouth Marketing Association, An Introduction to Word of Mouth Marketing, at http://www.womma.org/womm101/(last visited May 26, 2009) ("Word of mouth marketing empowers people to share their experiences. It's harnessing the voice of the customer for the good of the brand.").
18. See Keller, supra note 10, at 450-51.
19. Justin Kirby, How to Manage and Measure the Word of Mouth Revolution, MarketingProfs, Feb. 28, 2006, http://www.marketingprofs.com/6/kirbyl.asp ("Acute advertising clutter is making it increasingly difficult for traditional marketing campaigns to break through and capture people's attention. To avoid the advertising cacophony, buyers turn to their friends for word of mouth recommendations.").
20. Maria Flores Letelier et al., Strategies for Viral Marketing, in KELLOGG ON INTEGRATED Marketing 90, 90 (Dawn Iacobucci & Bobby Calder eds., 2003) ;
21. see also Lois Kelly, Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing 14 (2007) ("Surveys say that people don't trust companies and that the only way to win back that trust is through communicating in new ways.") ;
22. George Silverman, The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing 23-35 (2001) (discussing reasons for the high influence of word of mouth) ;
23. Donnavieve Smith et al., Online Peer and Editorial Recommendations, Trust, and Choice in Virtual Markets, J. INTERACTIVE MARKETING, Summer 2005, at 15, 32 (reporting empirical study demonstrating that online consumers rely on independent recommendations more than they rely on sponsored ads).
24. See Caroline McCarthy, Facebook Ads Makes a Flashy Debut in New York, CNET News, Nov. 6, 2007, http://news.cnet.com/the-social/8301-13577-3-9811932- 36.html (referring to Facebook Ads as "rooted in viral trends and 'trusted referrals'").
25. See Posting of Dan Farber to Between the Lines, Facebook Beacon Update: No Activities Published Without User Proactively Consenting, http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7188 (Nov. 29, 2007, 19: 05) (reporting Zuckerberg's remarks) ;
26. see also Story, supra note 2 ("Nothing influences a person more than a recommendation from a trusted friend." (quoting Zuckerberg)) ;
27. Press Release, Facebook, Facebook Unveils Facebook Ads (Nov. 6, 2007), http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=9176 ("Social actions are powerful because they act as trusted referrals and reinforce the fact that people influence people." (quoting Zuckerberg)).
28. See Letelier et al., supra note 13, at 90. The telephone company MCI used similar personal connections in its successful promotion to give higher discounts for calls among "friends and family" who became MCI customers. Notably, however, AT&T responded with an extensive ad campaign attacking the program as an irritating invasion of privacy.
29. See Jennifer L. Givens & James Kyle Lynch, MCI Communications Corporation: Friends and Family, in NEW PRODUCT SUCCESS STORIES 196, 201-05 (Robert J. Thomas ed., 1995).
30. See, e.g., Esther Margolis, The Role of Promotion in the Book Publishing Process, 33 LIBR. Trends 215, 217-21 (1984).
31. See, e.g., Virgin Mobile, Referral Rewards Program-Virgin Mobile Kickbacks, http://www.virginmobileusa.com/promos/kickbacks.do (last visited May 26, 2009) (explaining a program to reward mobile phone customers who refer their friends to the company with sixty free minutes).
32. See generally Silverman, supra note 13, at 188-90 (discussing "referral selling programs").
33. See Geoff Williams, Top 10 Successful Marketing Stunts, ENTREPRENEUR, July 20, 2006, http://www.entrepreneur.com/marketmg/marketmgideas/article159484. html. In a more outlandish example, Ford Motor Company reportedly gives Mustang cars to flight attendants to drive during layovers so that people see "glamorous" women driving the vehicle, internalize that image of the product, and talk about it.
34. See Letelier et al., supra note 13, at 91.
35. See, e.g., Carol Memmott, 'Dawn' Breaks Publisher's First-Day Sales Record; 'Twilight' Finale Lands Amid Frenzy, USA Today, Aug. 4, 2008, at 1D, available at http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-08-03-breaking-dawn- sales-N.htm;
36. see also LEONARD M. LODISH ET AL., Entrepreneurial Marketing 171 (2001) (discussing lavish launch parties for release of new Microsoft Windows operating system).
37. See Jeanette Kennett & Steve Matthews, What's the Buzz? Undercover Marketing and the Corruption of Friendship, 25 J. APPLIED PHIL. 2, 3 (2008) ;
38. see also, e.g., Jackie Crosby, Bloggers Seeing Red over Target's Little Secret, Star Trib., Dec. 1, 2007, at 1A, available at http://www.startribune. com/business/11987331.html (describing an initiative by Target Corp. to sign up "Target Rounders" who received discounts, CDs, and other prizes for making positive comments about Target on Facebook and elsewhere while concealing their affiliation).
39. See Andy Sernovttz, Word of Mouth Marketing: How Smart Companies Get PEOPLE TALKING 5 (2006) ;
40. Dee T. Allsop et al., Word of Mouth Research: Principles and Applications, 47 J. Advertising Res., 398, 410 (2007).
41. See Russell Abratt et al., Role of the Market Maven in Retailing: A General Marketplace Influencer, 10 J. Bus. & PSYCHOL. 31, 53-54 (1995). (discussing, prior to the popularization of the internet, difficulties in identifying those most likely to repeat positive word-of-mouth messages).
42. See Tim O'Reilly, What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, O'Reilly MEDIA, Sept. 30, 2005, http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (explaining the origins of the term "Web 2.0").
43. Lev Grossman, Time Person of the Year: You, Time, Dec. 25, 2006, at 38, available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0, 9171, 1569514, 00.html.
44. See generally Goldman, supra note 9.
45. Id. at 411.
46. See Sernovttz, supra note 22, at 25-26, 167-77.
47. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom 25 (2006).
48. Chris Anderson, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More 98-124 (2006).
49. See David Weinberger, Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder 165-68 (2007).
50. Goldman, supra note 9, at 414-29 (discussing marketers' exercises of trademark rights to control online word of mouth).
51. See, e.g., The Subservient Chicken, http://www.subservientchicken. com/(last visited May 26, 2009) (novelty web site sponsored by Burger King to promote a new chicken sandwich where a person in a chicken costume obeys user commands).
52. See generally Daniel Terdiman, Marketers Feverish over Viral Ads, Wired, Mar. 22, 2005, http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/03/66960 (describing examples of viral marketing). Like the other terms in this space, the definition of viral marketing is unsettled, and some uses of the term overlap with social marketing or word-of-mouth marketing.
53. See David Lazarus, Too Much Contact at This Reunion, L. A. TIMES, Apr. 16, 2008, at C1. Such e-mail tactics have been challenged under anti-spam law.
54. z.ast;1; Rules Implementing the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 16 C. F. R. § 316 (2008) (defining requirements under federal anti-spam law).
55. See, e.g., Facebook, Facebook Factsheet, http://www.facebook.com/ facebook#/press/info. php?factsheet (last visited May 26, 2009) (describing the purposes and uses of Facebook) ;
56. MySpace, About Us, http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc. aboutus (last visited May 26, 2009) (describing the purposes and uses of MySpace).
57. See James Grimmelmann, Facebook and the Social Dynamics of Privacy, 95 Iowa L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009), manuscript at 9, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1262822 (Sept. 3, 2008) ("A fully filled-out Facebook profile contains about 40 pieces of recognizably personal information....").
58. See Facebook, Facebook Principles, Privacy Policy (Nov. 26, 2008), http://www.facebook. com/policy.php;
59. MySpace, Privacy Policy (Feb. 28, 2008), http://www.myspace.com/index. cfin? fuseaction=misc.privacy.
60. Facebook, Statistics, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last visited May 26, 2009). Facebook says over 100 million users log on "at least once each day." Id.
61. See Posting of Michael Arlington to TechCrunch, Social Networking: Will Facebook Overtake MySpace in the U. S. in 2009?, http://www.techcmnch.com/2009/ 01/13/social-networking-willfacebook-overtake-myspace-in-the-us-in-1009/(Jan. 13, 2009) (reporting that Facebook has 54.5 million unique U. S. visitors compared to nearly 76 million for MySpace but that Facebook is growing faster than MySpace in the United States).
62. According to the most recent statistics from the ranking service Alexa, Facebook and My-Space are the fourth and ninth most popular sites on the web, respectively. Two other social networking sites popular outside the United States, Hi5 and V Kontakte, also rank in the top thirty. Finally, other sites with social networking features are also high on the list, including YouTube, Blogger, eBay, and the Chinese instant messaging site Qq.
63. See Alexa, Top Sites, http://www.alexa.com/topsites (last visited Apr. 17, 2009).
64. News Corp in $580m Internet Buy, BBC NEWS, July 19, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/1/hi/business/4695495.stm.
65. One recent estimate places Facebook's market value between $13 billion and $2.3 billion. Owen Thomas, Facebook's New Value: $1.3 Billion?, Valleywag, Dec. 15, 2008, http://valleywag. gawker.com/5106128/ facebooks-new-value-13-billion. Needless to say, recent turmoil in the stock market complicates these estimates. Early in 2008, observers routinely cited a $15 billion figure.
66. See, e.g., Katrina Chan, How Much Is Facebook Really Worth?, MOTLEY FOOL, Feb. 14, 2008, http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2008/02/14/how-much- is-facebook-really-worth.aspx;
67. Posting of Adam Ostrow to Mashable, The Facebook Valuation Debate: IPO Highly Unlikely Before 2010, http://mashable.com/2008/02/14/facebook-valuation- 2/(Feb. 14, 2008).
68. See Posting of Om Malik to GigaOM, Why Facebook Connect Matters and Why It Will Win, http://gigaom.com/2008/07/23/facebook-connect/(July 23, 2008, 22: 19 PT) ("[Facebook] makes no bones about trying to build a platform that allows it to offer branded advertising in a manner akin to Google's Adsense.").
69. See Caroline McCarthy, MySpace Gets 'Hyper' with Targeted Ads, CNET News, Nov. 5, 2007, http://news.cnet.coni/8301-13577-3-9810771-36.html (reporting MySpace's announcement of advertising program called "'HyperTargeting, which uses the information that members put in their profiles to serve up ads they might actually want to see") ;
70. Facebook, Facebook Advertising, http://www.facebook.com/advertising/(last visited May 26, 2009) (encouraging advertisers to "[r]each your exact audience and connect real customers to your business").
71. See Nir Vulkan, The Economics of E-Commerce 25 (2003).
72. John Battelle, The Search 123-24 (2005).
73. Id. at 194.
74. See Miguel Helft, Google's Free Phone Manager Could Threaten a Variety of Services, N. Y. TIMES, Mar. 12, 2009, at B9, available at http://www.nytimes. com/2009/03/12/teclmology/internet/12google.html;
75. Rex Crum, No End in Sight for Microsoft-Google War, MARKETWATCH, Oct. 15, 2008, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/no-end-sight-microsoft-google-war/ story.aspx?guid=% 7BA5D6279D-4OA9-4AEB-9835-CO03D296A841%7D&dist=msr-2 (describing Google's business efforts to become a centralized place to find information, so that "Google is able to collect more information directly from consumers and tailor its advertising efforts").
76. See Chan, supra note 42;
77. Peter Kafka, News Corp: Selling Ads for MySpace Is Hard Work!, Bus. INSIDER, May 7, 2008, http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/news-corp-don-t-worry- about-revenue-myspace-is-doing-great;
78. Ostrow, supra note 42. Even Google, which entered an advertising partnership with MySpace in 2006, has been unable to solve the puzzle of extracting advertising revenue from social networks.
79. See Posting of Michael Arrington to TechCrunch, Fox Said to Be Exploring Termination of Google Advertising Deal, http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/25/ fox-exploringtermination-of-google-advertising-deal/(Feb. 25, 2008). Google founder Sergey Brin summed up the slow progress:
80. I don't think we have the killer best way to advertise and monetize the social networks yet. We're running lots of experiments. We had some significant improvements but as I said, some of the things we were working on in Q4 didn't really pan out and there were some disappointments there.
81. Google, 2007 Q4 Earnings Conference Call (Jan. 31, 2008), http://investor.google.com/webcast.html (follow respective Webcast hyperlink) (transcript available at http://seekingalpha.com/article/62591-google-q4-2007- earnings-call-transcript).
82. Kevin Kelleher, MySpace and Friends Need to Make Money. And Fast., Wired, Mar. 24, 2008, http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz-socialnetworks ("[O]ne social networking metric is distinctly underwhelming: the one with a dollar sign. "). One exception is the social networking site LinkedIn, which can charge much higher CPM rates in part because it is aimed at professionals. Id.
83. Id.
84. See, e.g., Bill Houghton, Social Networks' Failed Advertising Strategy, SEMINAL, Apr. 15, 2008, http://www.thesemmal.com/2008/04/15/social-networks- failed-advertising-strategy
85. Kafka, supra note 49;
86. Scott Karp, Why Traditional Advertising Formats Fail on the Web, PUBLISHING 2.0, May 24, 2008, http://publishing2.corn/2008/05/24/why- traditional-advertising-formats-fail-on-the-web/.
87. See Emily Steel, Marketers Cut Back on Digital Media; Budgets for Videogames, Cellphones, Other New Formats Fall Victim to Downturn, WALL ST. J., Oct. 15, 2008, at B6 ("Financial woes likely will derail the growth of a slew of advertising technologies that until recently were being hailed as the next big thing.").
88. But see Story, supra note 2 (reporting, in 2007, that "[ejxecutives from consumer brand companies attending the [Facebook Ads launch] announcement said they viewed ads on social networking sites as a priority in their ad spending").
89. For somewhat more complex variations on these structures, see infra notes 276-79 and accompanying text.
90. Many thanks to Mike Minehart for assistance with these diagrams.
91. Laura Petrecca & Jon Swartz, Marketers to Capitalize on Facebook Connections, USA Today, Nov. 7, 2007, at 3B (quoting Jeremiah Owyang, an analyst at Forrester Research).
92. Facebook has changed the terminology it uses to refer to its social marketing and advertising programs several times, which can cause confusion. This Article adheres to the original language, which referred to "Facebook Ads" as the overarching social marketing initiative and to "Beacon" and "Social Ads" as its two components.
93. Press Release, supra note 15.
94. Id.
95. See Story, supra note 2 (using Blockbuster example) ;
96. Googins, supra note 4 (same).
97. For an excellent blog post explaining Beacon's code and how it operated, see Posting of Jay Goldman to Radiant Core, Deconstructing Facebook Beacon JavaScript, http://www.radiantcore.com/blog/archives/23/11/2007/ deconstructingfacebookbeaconjavascript (Nov. 23, 2007, 17: 00). I am also grateful to Jesse Cheng for his assistance in understanding the mechanics of Beacon.
98. Id.
99. See Morganstern, supra note 4, at 183-84;
100. Christopher Caldwell, Intimate Shopping, N. Y. Times, Dec. 23, 2007, (Magazine), at 13. When a user returned to the Facebook page, that site would notify the user that "Blockbuster.com is sending a story to your profile, " but this message did not include another opportunity to opt out.
101. See Posting of Charlene Li to Forrester Research Groundswell Blog, http://bologs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/ll/close-encounter.html (Nov. 21, 2007, 14: 46) (showing a screenshot).
102. A screenshot illustrating this sample message is on file with author.
103. See Press Release, supra note 15.
104. Press Release, Facebook, Leading Websites Offer Facebook Beacon for Social Distribution (Nov. 6, 2007), http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php? p=9166 ("In a marketplace where trust and reputation are crucial to success, giving sellers the ability to easily alert their network of friends-the people who already know and trust them-to an item for sale has the potential to be a powerful tool.").
105. Ellen Nakashima, Feeling Betrayed, Facebook Users Force Site to Honor Their Privacy, Wash. Post, Nov. 30, 2007, at A1.
106. Press Release, supra note 15.
107. See, e.g., Caldwell, supra note 63;
108. Ellen Lee, Facebook Apologizes for New Ad System, S. F. Chronicle, Dec. 6, 2007, at C1;
109. Nakashima, supra note 67;
110. Louise Story & Brad Stone, Facebook Retreats on Online Tracking, N. Y. TIMES, Nov. 30, 2007, at C1;
111. Jessica Guynn, Saving Face over Facebook Faux Pas, L. A. Times, Dec. 6, 2007, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/06/business/fifacebook6.
112. Facebook, Petition: Facebook, Stop Invading My Privacy!, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5930262681 (last visited May 26, 2009) [hereinafter MoveOn Petition];
113. Jessica Guynn, Latest Target of MoveOn: Facebook, L. A. TIMES, Nov. 21, 2007, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/21/business/fi-facebook21.
114. Steven Levy, Do Real Friends Share Ads?, Newsweek, Dec. 10, 2007, at 30.
115. MoveOn Petition, supra note 70.
116. Lee, supra note 69;
117. Guynn, supra note 69; Posting of Louise Story to New York Times Bits Blog, Coke Is Holding Off on Sipping Facebook's Beacon, http://bits.blogs. nytimes.com/2007/ll/30/coke-is-holding-off-on-sipping-facebooks-beacon/(Nov. 30, 2007, 15: 53).
118. Posting of Mark Zuckerberg to The Facebook Blog, http://blog.facebook. com/blog. php?post=7584397130 (Dec. 5, 2007, 9: 00). Just a week earlier, Facebook executives had defended Facebook Ads and insisted that they would not offer a blanket opt-out to users. Story & Stone, supra note 69.
119. See, e.g., Posting of Justin Smith to Inside Facebook, Facebook's New Social Video Ad Unit Is an Engagement Magnet, http://www.insidefacebook.com/ 2008/08/14/facebooks-new-social-video-adunit-is-an-engagement-magnet/(Aug. 14, 2008) ;
120. Posting of Meghan Keane to Wired Epicenter, Facebook's New Social Ads Turn Your Friends into Marketers, http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/08/your- facebook-n.html (Aug. 20, 2008, 16: 38)
121. Posting of Will M to All Facebook, Facebook's Tim Kendall on the Future of Monetization, http://www.allfacebook.com/2008/08/facebooks-tim-kendallon- future-of-monetization/(Aug, 20, 2008, 10: 52).
122. See Stone, supra note 6;
123. Posting of Mark Zuckerberg to Facebook Blog, Facebook Across the Web, http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=41735647130 (Dec. 4, 2008, 14: 18) ;
124. see also Leggatt, supra note 6 (discussing Facebook's other more recent social marketing efforts) ; Posting of Dave Morin to Facebook Developer, Announcing Facebook Connect, http://developers.facebook.com/news. php?blog=l&story=108 (May 9, 2008, 12: 32) (previewing the soft launch of Facebook Connect).
125. MySpace Developer Platform, Category: MySpaceID, http://wiki.developer. myspace.com/index.php?title=Category:MySpaceID (last visited May 26, 2009) ;
126. Google Code, Open Social, http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/(last visited May 26, 2009) ;
127. see Stone, supra note 6;
128. MySpace Embraces Data Portability, Partners with Yahoo, Ebay, and Twitter, TECHCRUNCH, May 8, 2008, http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/08/myspace- embraces-data-portability-partners-with-yahoo-ebayand-twitter/.
129. The well-known technology blogger Om Malik characterized Facebook Connect as "like Facebook Beacon-minus the marketing sleaziness." Posting of Om Malik to GigaOM, Social Web's Big Question: Federate or Aggregate?, http://gigaom.com/2008/ll/30/social-webs-big-questionfederate-or-aggregate/(Nov. 20, 2008, 22: 08 PT).
130. Press Release, supra note 15;
131. MoveOn Petition, supra note 70.
132. See sources cited supra note 69.
133. Lane Complaint, supra note 7, at 1; Amended Complaint, Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00155-DF (E. D. Tex. June 3, 2008) [hereinafter Harris Complaint] (suing Blockbuster only).
134. See Complaint of Phillippa Lawson et al. to Can. Privacy Comm'n (May 30, 2008), http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/CIPPICTacebookComplaint-29May08.pdf [hereinafter Lawson Complaint].
135. See, e.g., Googins, supra note 4;
136. IdeaLog, Facebook Super Creeped Me Out Tonight, http://www.idealog.us/ 2008/07/facebook-super.html (July 16, 2008, 1: 18) ;
137. Posting of Adam Ostrow to Mashable, Report: Facebook Might Make Beacon Less Creepy, http://mashable.com/2007/ll/29/facebook-beacon/(Nov. 29, 2007) ;
138. Posting of David Weinberger to Huffington Post, Facebook's Privacy Default, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weinberger/facebooks-privacy- defauLb-72687. html (Nov. 14, 2007, 17: 48 LEST) ("I find myself creeped out by this system....").
139. See Joel R. Reidenberg, Setting Standards for Fair Information Practice in the U. S. Private Sector, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 497, 515 (1995).
140. As an extreme example, consider the privacy policy for Bedpost, a site where users can track information about their sexual encounters: We understand that this is potentially the most personal of data-sets you will ever keep outside of financial records. The records you save here will never be viewed by us nor will it ever be sold or provided to a third party. This information is permanently delete-able by you, should you deem it necessary.
141. See Bedpost, Privacy Policy, http://bedposted.com/(last visited May 26, 2009) ;
142. see also, e.g., Google Health, Google Health Privacy Policy, http://www.google.com/intl/en-US/health/privacy.html (last visited May 26, 2009) (describing similar rules for sharing and deleting medical information).
143. Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, 87 TEX. L. Rev. 387, 387 (2008) (discussing First Amendment implications of "intellectual privacy-the protection of records of our intellectual activities") -
144. Julie E. Cohen, A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at "Copyright Management in Cyberspace, " 28 Conn. L. Rev. 981, 1003-19 (1996) ;
145. Richards, supra note 86, at 434-37.
146. MoveOn.org, Facebook Must Respect Privacy, http://www.civic.moveon.org/ facebookprivacy/(last visited May 26, 2009). As to privacy of political contributions
147. see generally William McGeveran, Mrs. McIntyre's Checkbook: Privacy Costs of Political Contribution Disclosure, 6 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1 (2003).
148. See Press Release, supra note 66 (listing Beacon partner sites).
149. See, e.g., Caldwell, supra note 63, at 13;
150. Nakashima, supra note 67;
151. Tom Regan, Facebook Faces Up to Privacy Concerns-Again, Christian Sci. Monitor, Dec. 12, 2007, at 16;
152. Story & Stone, supra note 69;
153. Guynn, supra note 69.
154. See Grimmelmann, supra note 36, manuscript at 20-22.
155. Posting of Ansley to Facebook, Facebook, Stop Invading My Privacy!, This Group is Awesome! Good Call, MoveOn.org, http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid= 5930262681&topic=3630 (Nov. 22, 2007, 23: 31).
156. Jerry Kang, Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions, 50 STAN. L. Rev. 1193, 1198-99 (1998) ;
157. see also Caldwell, supra note 63, at 13 ("We used to live in a world where if someone secretly followed you from store to store, recording your purchases, it would be considered impolite and even weird. Today, such an option can be redefined [by Facebook Beacon] as 'default' behavior.").
158. Posting of David Weinberger to Huffington Post, supra note 83 ("The couple would feel violated not only because their 'information'-their conversation-was published but because they had the expectation that even though their sound waves were physically available to anyone walking on the street who cared to listen, norms prevent us from doing so-Our expectation is that our transactions at one site are neither to be made known to other sites nor made known to our friends.").
159. See Grimmelmann, supra note 36, manuscript at 24-25;
160. Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy as Contextual Integrity, 79 WASH. L. REV. 119 (2004).
161. See Oscar Gandy, The Panoptic Sort (1993) ;
162. Paul M. Schwartz, Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 1609, 1647-67 (1999).
163. See, e.g., Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) ;
164. Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom 23-51 (1967).
165. See Richards, supra note 86, at 425 ("Intellectual privacy thus permits us to experiment with ideas in relative seclusion without having to disclose them before we have developed them, considered them, and decided whether to adopt them as our own. ") ;
166. Schwartz, supra note 96,. at 1647 (summarizing ways that concern created by pervasive internet monitoring will constrain democratic deliberation, self-govemance, and related values).
167. See Privacy Implications of Online Advertising: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 110th Cong. 3-5 (2008) [hereinafter Kelly Testimony] (testimony of Chris Kelly, Chief Privacy Officer, Facebook) http://commerce.senate.gov/public/-files/ ChrisKellyFacebookOnlinePrivacyTestimony.pdf ("Social Ads are only presented to confirmed friends as opposed to the world at large....") ;
168. Anick Jesdanun & Rachel Metz, Facebook Users Raise Privacy Complaints over New Tracking, USA Today, Nov. 22, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/ internetprivacy/2007-1 l-22-facebook-tracking-N.htm ("Information is shared with a small selection of a user's trusted network of friends, not publicly on the Web or with all Facebook users.").
169. See Richard A. Posner, Privacy, Surveillance, and Law, 75 U. Cm. L. REV. 245, 245, 249-50 (2008).
170. See id. at 251.
171. See Charles Fried, Privacy, 77 Yale L. J. 475, 489-90 (1968).
172. See Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, A Social Networks Theory of Privacy, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 919, 948-59 (2005).
173. See Posting of Ansley to Facebook, supra note 92;
174. Posting of Amanda Lenhart to Pew-Internet, Facebook Connect and a Failure to Understand Online Identity Management, http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/p/ 1525/pipcomments.asp (Dec. 2, 2008, 11: 31) ("In the offline world, we don't present ourselves in the same way to all people in our lives-we show different sides of ourselves to our mothers, our friends, our employers.").
175. See Posting of Justin Smith to Inside Facebook, Facebook Friend Lists Let You Manage Your "Friends" More Effectively, http://www. insidefacebook.com/2007/12/19/facebook-friend-lists-letyou-manage-your-friends- more-effectively/(Dec. 17, 2007) ;
176. MySpace.com, Frequently Asked Questions, http://faq.myspace.com/(search "Privacy" then follow "1. Control Privacy on MySpace profile 2.0" hyperlink) (last visited May 26, 2009).
177. As The New York Times quoted one observer, "'Isn't this community getting a little hypocritical?, said Chad Stoller, director of emerging platforms at Organic, a digital advertising agency. 'Now, all of a sudden, they don't want to share something?'" Story & Stone, supra note 69.
178. Memorandum from Amanda Lenhart, Senior Research Specialist, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Adults and Social Network Websites, at 1 (Jan. 14, 2009), http://www.pewinternet.org/-/medica//Files/Reports/2009/PIP-Adult-social- networking-data-memo-FINAL.pdf.pdf.
179. Id.
180. See id. at 9-11 (reporting that the majority of adult users of online social networks restrict access to their profiles and content and take other privacy-protective measures) ;
181. Memorandum from Amanda Lenhart & Mary Madden, Senior Research Specialists, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Social Networking Websites and Teens, at 5 (Jan. 3, 2007), http://www.pewinternet.org/~media// Files/Reports/2007/PIP-SNS-Data-Memo-Jan-2007.pdf.pdf (reporting similar data about teenagers).
182. See John Palfrey & Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives 36. (2008).
183. See Clive Thompson, I'm So Totally, Digitally Close to You, N. Y. TIMES, Sept. 7, 2008, (Magazine), at 42, available at http://wvw.nytimes.com/2008/09/ 07/magazine/07awareness-t.html.
184. See Grimmelmann, supra note 36, manuscript at 11-17 (identifying social construction of identity, relationship, and community as key motivations for participation in online social networks).
185. Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 C. F. R. § 255.0 (b) (2008) ("[A]n endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) which
186. See Goldman, supra note 9, at 410;
187. Kelly, supra note 13, at 14;
188. Smith et al., supra note 13, at 32.
189. See Goldman, supra note 9, at 429.
190. See supra notes 60-64 and accompanying text.
191. See supra note 90 and accompanying text.
192. See, e.g., Adam Conner-Simons, Don't Quote Me, But⋯, GELF Mag., Sept. 21, 2007, http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/dont-quote-me-but.php.
193. Id. ("Many critics question whether blurbing even contributes to films' success.").
194. See Deven R. Desai, Property, Persona, and Preservation, 81 TEMPLE L. REV. (forthcoming 2009), manuscript at 17-22, available at http://papers.ssra. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id-1101648 (discussing "attention economics" and viewing consumer attention as a scarce resource) ;
195. Frank Pasquale, Copyright in an Era of Information Overload: Toward the Privileging of Categorizers, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 135, 166-71 (2007) (discussing how information overload creates externalities similar to pollution).
196. See Sernovttz, supra note 22, at 15-18.
197. See Abratt et al., supra note 23, at 32-34 (reviewing marketing literature concerning "market mavens") ;
198. Nicholas Casey & Bruce Orwall, Running Underground: To Sharpen Nike's Edge, CEO Taps 'Influencers;' House Built by Athletes Hires a Tattoo Artist;
199. Mr. Parker and the Twins, WALL St. J., Oct. 24, 2007, at A1 (describing efforts by Nike to appeal to 'influencers' as a means of maintaining the brand's edge).
200. But see Matthew Creamer, What's Plaguing Viral Marketing, ADVERTISING AGE, July 16, 2007, at 1 (reporting on skeptics who believe influencers have more limited impact than sometimes suggested).
201. The 2008 redesign of Facebook recognized this fact more generally by restoring the ability for users to request less information about particular friends in the News Feed. Posting of Nick O'Neill on AllFacebook, Facebook Furthers Attack on FriendFeed, Adds Comments to News Feed, http://www. allfacebook.com/2008/07/facebook-furthers-attack-on-friendfeed-adds-comments-to- newsfeed/(July 31, 2008, 9: 41).
202. Celebrities, of course, must also avoid overexposure that dilutes the influence of their reputation in endorsements. See Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 603 P.2d 425, 438 (Cal. 1979) ("[W]hile a judicious involvement in commercial promotions may have been perceived as an important ingredient in one's career, uncontrolled exposure may be dysfunctional.").
203. See XV Oxford English Dictionary 453, 454 (2d ed. 1989) (defining "signal-to-noise ratio" as "the ratio of the strength of a desired signal to that of unwanted noise interference, usu[ally] expressed in decibels; also transf. to non-electrical systems") ;
204. Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace from the Listener's Perspective: Private Speech Restrictions, Libel, State Action, Harassment, and Sex, 1996 U. Chi. LEGAL F. 377, 382-83 (using "signal to noise" synonymously with "ratios of wheat to chaff').
205. Cf. Sernovitz, supra note 22, at 31-33 (comparing the danger that deceptive online wordof-mouth practices might create consumer distrust to a similar phenomenon in spam).
206. Jonathan Kahn, Privacy as a Legal Principle of Identity Maintenance, 33 SETON HALL L. Rev. 371, 373 (2003) ;
207. see also Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, We Are Symbols and Inhabit Symbols, So Should We Be Paying Rent? Deconstructing the Lanham Act and Rights of Publicity, 20 COLUM.-VLA J. L. & ARTS 123, 127 (1996) (noting desirability of legal protection for "those who do not want to hawk products, or to be seen as associated with or endorsing a particular manufacturer") ;
208. Robert C. Post, Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy, Property, and Appropriation, 41 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 647, 676 (1991) ("[W]e must inquire whether we wish the law to create a social structure in which our very names and images have become alienable commodities.").
209. Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
210. Id. at 195 (citing Thomas P. Cooley, COOLEY on Torts 29 (2d ed. 1888)).
211. See id. at 195-96, 211, 213-14;
212. see also Leon Green, The Right of Privacy, 27 ILL. L. Rev. 237, 244-46 (1932) (describing early cases that "definitely" establish liability for nonconsensual "commercial, trade, or business use" of a plaintiff's photograph).
213. See Daniel J. Solove, Conceptualizing Privacy, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1087, 1097-99 (2002) (using Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblances" to identify commonalities among many diverse interests usually classified as "privacy").
214. Many scholars have examined rationales comprehensively, a task beyond the scope of this Article. Indeed, the brief summary offered here ignores some important theoretical distinctions. My only purpose is to identify a separate set of privacy-like concerns about social marketing, beyond disclosure of personal information. For an overview of these debates about persona rights
215. see generally 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy §§ 2. 1-2.9 (2d ed. 2009). For some good examples of thorough critical treatment from a variety of perspectives
216. see, for example, Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law, 58 STAN. L. Rev. 1161, 1180-90 (2006) ;
217. Lee Goldman, Elvis Is Alive, But He Shouldn't Be: The Right of Publicity Revisited, 1992 BYU L. REV. 597, 603-13;
218. Sheldon W. Halpern, The Right of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value of Personality, 39 VAND. L. Rev. 1199 (1986) ;
219. Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Fame, 73 IND. L. J. 1 (1997) ;
220. Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights, 81 CAL. L. REV. 125 (1993) ;
221. Mark P. McKenna, The Right of Publicity and Autonomous Self-Definition, 67 U. PITT. L. REV. 225 (2005).
222. Dogan & Lemley, supra note 132, at 1163.
223. See, e.g., Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 962, 971 (1964) (defining right of "inviolate personality") ;
224. Alice Haemmerli, Whose Who? The Case for a Kantian Right of Publicity, 49 DUKE L. J. 383, 417-21 (1999) (arguing based on Kantian philosophy) ;
225. McKenna, supra note 132, at 279-90 (defining right to "autonomous self-definition").
226. See Warren & Brandeis, supra note 128, at 195-96.
227. See Beth Simone Noveck, Trademark Law and the Social Construction of Trust: Creating the Legal Framework for Online Identity, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1733, 1737-38 (2005).
228. See McKenna, supra note 132, at 286-88 (comparing a false implication of endorsement to compelled speech and arguing that such implications rob individuals of the right to express themselves on their own terms).
229. See, e.g., Melville B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity, 19 Law & CONTEMP. Probs. 203, 216 (1954) (arguing for right of publicity because an individual who develops an identity with pecuniary value deserves protection for an investment that required "considerable time, effort, skill, and even money") ;
230. see also Dogan & Lemley, supra note 132, at 1181-84 (criticizing Lockean "moral rights" rationale) ;
231. McKenna, supra note 132, at 250-58 (same) ;
232. cf. Post, supra note 127, at 658-62 (arguing that Warren and Brandeis began the evolution of justification away from a pure Lockean "labor" theory toward a broader "personality" theory).
233. See, e.g., Haemmerli, supra note 134, at 417-21 (arguing based on Kantian philosophy).
234. 50 S. E. 68 (Ga. 1905). Another famous case of the era rejected a similar claim
235. see Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 64 N. E. 442, 447-48 (N. Y. 1902), but was overturned promptly by state legislation.
236. See N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51 (McKinney 1992).
237. Pavesich, 50 S. E. at 68-69 ("Under the plaintiff's picture the following appeared: 'In my healthy and productive period of life I bought insurance in the New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., of Boston, Mass., and to-day my family is protected and I am drawing an annual dividend on my paid-up policies.'⋯ He never made any such statement, and has not, and never has had, a policy of life insurance with the defendant company.").
238. Id. at 80.
239. See, e.g., Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U. S. 562, 576-77 (1977) (suggesting that the right of publicity protected incentives in a similar fashion to copyright and patent law) ;
240. see also Dogan & Lemley, supra note 132, at 1186-90 (criticizing incentive rationale) ;
241. McKenna, supra note 132, at 258-63 (same).
242. Munden v. Harris, 134 S. W. 1076, 1078 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911) ;
243. see also Roberson, 64 N. E. at 450 (N. Y. 1902) (Gray, J., dissenting) ("[I]f her face or her portraiture has a value, the value is hers exclusively, until the use be granted away to the public").
244. See Caldwell, supra note 63, at 14 ("[Y]our shopping choices and preferences have value. Who owns those choices? Common sense says that you do. If a company wants to use you to advertise its products, it can pay you, just as Nike pays Tiger Woods.") ;
245. Desai, supra note 120, manuscript at 22-25;
246. see also ANNE WELLS BRANSCOMB, WHO OWNS INFORMATION?: FROM PRIVACY TO PUBLIC ACCESS 174-86 (1994) (casting interest in control of personal information as ownership interest) ;
247. Ann Bartow, Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy, Propertization, and Gender, 34 U. S. F. L. REV. 633, 687-90 (2000) (proposing property rights in personal data based on similar observations).
248. See infra Part III. C.
249. The legal actions taken against Facebook Ads-two class action suits in the United States and a regulatory complaint in Canada-were grounded in disclosure concerns and relied largely on privacy law claims. See supra notes 81-82 and accompanying text.
250. 14a See Daniel J. Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 477, 525-52 (2006). In this Article, I draw a sharper distinction than Solove does between legal rules about the disclosure of truthful factual information and rules about misleading information, such as defamation or false light.
251. See id. at 545-52.
252. For discussion of the persona rights paradigm, see infra Part III. C.
253. See Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People From Speaking About You, 52 STAN. L. REV. 1049, 1054-57 (2000) (drawing similar distinctions).
254. For more about the very different approach to disclosure of personal information in other countries, see infra notes 193-204 and accompanying text.
255. See Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy 's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEO. L. J. 123, 126, 151 (2007).
256. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976) (bank) ;
257. United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745 (1971) (informant).
258. See, e.g., Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552a (2006) (limiting access to and use of personal data in government databases) ;
259. Reno v. Condon, 528 U. S. 141 (2000) (upholding constitutionality of limits on state governments' use of personal data collected by departments of motor vehicles) ;
260. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589 (1977) (recognizing possible constitutional basis for restricting government data collection).
261. See David H. Holtzman, Privacy Lost: How Technology Is Endangering Your Privacy 187-209 (2006) ;
262. Robert O'Harrow, Jr., No Place to Hide 34-73 (2005) ;
263. Daniel J. Solove, The Digital Person 15-21 (2004).
264. See, e.g., Kang, supra note 93;
265. Richards & Solove, supra note 152;
266. Schwartz, supra note 96;
267. Volokh, supra note 150.
268. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977) ;
269. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, 392-98 (1960).
270. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D.
271. Id. § 652D cmt. c.
272. See supra notes 84-85 and accompanying text. It might be possible to reconceptualize the disclosure tort to better reflect the dynamics of social networks. See Grimmelmann, supra note 36, manuscript at 44-45. See generally Strahilevitz, supra note 103. This would represent a dramatic departure, however, so for current purposes I put this intriguing possibility aside.
273. See Richards & Solove, supra note 152, at 175.
274. See, e.g., Rodney A. Smolla, Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Gather News, 67 GEO. Wash. L. Rev. 1097, 1101 (1999) (arguing that the tort exists "more 'in the books' than in practice") ;
275. Volokh, supra note 150, at 1122-24 (summing up "significant doctrinal problems" with the tort) ;
276. Diane L. Zimmerman, Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis's Privacy Tort, 68 Cornell L. Rev. 291, 293, 362-65 (1983) (summing up argument that the tort is a "failure").
277. See Robert C. Ozer, P. C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371, 378 (Colo. 1997) (requiring disclosure to "the general public or to a large number of persons") ;
278. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. a (1977) (stating that the "publicity" element requires communication "to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge"). The decisions on this requirement are a mixed bag. Compare Bauer v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1023-24 (D. Minn. 2001) (disclosure to four friends and employer did not constitute publicity), and Shattuck-Owen v. Snowbird Corp., 16 P.3d 555, 559 (Utah 2000) (disclosure to ten people involved in sexual assault investigation did not constitute publicity), with McSurely v. McClellan, 753 F.2d 88, 112-13 (D. C. Cir. 1985) (upholding jury verdict under Kentucky law finding liability for disclosure to U. S. Senate investigator), Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 560 N. E.2d 900, 902-03 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (disclosure to fellow employees did constitute publicity), and Beaumont v. Brown, 257 N. W.2d 522, 531 (Mich. 1977) (allowing liability for disclosure to "a particular public, whose knowledge of the private facts would be embarrassing to the plaintiff").
279. See Reidenberg, supra note 84, at 507-09;
280. see also Solove, supra note 155, at 67-72 (describing different sectoral statutes).
281. 45 C. F. R. § 160. 103 (2007).
282. Id. § 160. 102.
283. See Scope of Criminal Enforcement Under 42 U. S. C. § 1320d-6, Op. Off. Legal Counsel (June 1, 2005), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/hipaa- final.htm.
284. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 6801-6809 (2006) ;
285. see Edward J. Janger & Paul M. Schwartz, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Information Privacy, and the Limits of Default Rules, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 1219, 1224-30 (2002).
286. 15 U. S. C. § 1681b (b).
287. See supra notes 84-85 and accompanying text.
288. See Angela Choy et al., Exposed online: Why the New Federal Health Privacy Regulation Doesn't Offer Much Protection to Internet Users 16-21 (November 2001), http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2001/PIP- HIPP-HealthPriv-report.pdf.pdf.
289. See Stephanie Clifford, Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers, N. Y. Times, Mar. 26, 2009, at A1 (describing how sponsors of the online health quiz RealAge sell the information collected about millions of users to pharmaceutical companies to enable targeted marketing).
290. 18 U. S. C. § 2710 (2006).
291. See 134 CONG. REC. 31, 839-40 (1988) ;
292. SOLOVE, supra note 155, at 69.
293. 18 U. S. C. § 2710 (b) (1). The VPPA provides a private right of action and a statutory damages minimum of $2500.
294. Id. § 2710 (c).
295. Lane Complaint, supra note 7, at 42-49, (naming the sites Blockbuster.com, Fandango.com, Overstock.com, and Gamefly.com, and also suing Facebook for allegedly aiding and abetting those violations) ;
296. Harris Complaint, supra note 81, at 1, (suing Blockbuster only).
297. See Posting of James Grimmelmann to The Laboratorium, Facebook and the VPPA: Uh-Oh, http://www.laboratorium.net/archive/2007/12/10/facebook-and-the- vppa-uhoh (Dec. 10, 2007, 1:14).
298. 18 U. S. C. § 2710 (b) (2) (B).
299. This exception allows disclosure of customers' names, addresses, and general genres of movie preferences provided that customers can opt out of such information sharing and "the disclosure does not identify the title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual material; however, the subject matter of such materials may be disclosed if the disclosure is for the exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer." Id. § 2710 (b) (2) (D). Thus, the VPPA does allow the most common form of direct behavioral targeting, through gathering dossier information to support advertising aimed at the subject of the data. Nonconsensual social marketing, however, reveals actual titles and does so in order to market goods and service not directly to consumers but to their friends. It falls outside this exemption. For more general discussion of the differences between behavioral targeting and social marketing, see infra notes 272-76 and accompanying text.
300. The Lane suit is confined to the period before Beacon's alteration. See Lane Complaint, supra note 7, at 3. The Harris suit, in contrast, alleges that Blockbuster continued to violate the VPPA even after the reform of Beacon, because although user permission was then required before sending messages to friends, the site allegedly provided Facebook with protected information. See Harris Complaint, supra note 81. Based on an analysis of the code supporting Beacon, this does not appear to be the case; at most, Blockbuster's servers checked with Facebook's servers to connect a user to a Facebook account and ask permission to send a social marketing message, but do not appear to transmit any information protected by the VPPA at that stage. See Posting of Jay Goldman to Radiant Core, supra note 61. Again, my thanks to Jesse Cheng for his technical assistance.
301. See, e.g., In re Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d 9, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2003) ;
302. cf. Clifford, supra note 172.
303. But see Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1054 (Colo. 2002) (finding limited privacy protection for book purchases in state constitution). Most states do have some form of privacy statute covering library borrowing records, although their terms vary widely. See Am. Library Ass'n, State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records, http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/ offices/oif/ifgroups/stateifcchairs/stateifcinaction/stateprivacy.cfm (last visited May 26, 2009).
304. See Shibley v. Time, Inc., 341 N. E.2d 337 (Ohio Ct. App. 1975) (dismissing suit against magazine publisher for selling subscriber lists to direct marketers).
305. See Kang, supra note 93, at 1227, 1230-32. But see infra note 272 and accompanying text (describing modest FTC rulemaking concerning the regulation of behavioral advertising).
306. Richards, supra note 86, at 419-21.
307. See Lane Complaint, supra note 7, at 40-42 (citing 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2522 (2006)).
308. 18 U. S. C. § 2511 (1) (c) ;
309. see Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514, 520-21 (2001).
310. See 18 U. S. C. § 2511 (l) (a)-(b);
311. see also supra note 148 and accompanying text. In his attempt to develop a new taxonomy of information privacy law, for instance, Daniel Solove classifies "surveillance" and "intrusion" separately from a cluster of privacy interests related to "information dissemination. " Solove, supra note 148, at 478, 491-99, 552-57.
312. See 18 U. S. C. § 2511 (2) (d) ;
313. Chance v. Avenue A, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1162 (W. D. Wash. 2001). Twelve states do require consent of all parties under their state versions of the ECPA. See The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Can We Tape?: A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D. C. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html (last visited May 26, 2009) (listing California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington).
314. See, e.g., Forbes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1020-21 (D. Minn. 2006) (rejecting breach of contract and negligence claims arising from theft of plaintiff's personal data because fear of possible identity theft was too speculative) ;
315. In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig. 379 F. Supp. 2d 299, 326-27 (E. D. N. Y. 2005) (rejecting breach of contract claim for violation of privacy policy because of failure to prove damages) ;
316. Dwyer v. Am. Express Co., 652 N. E.2d 1351, 1356-57 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (rejecting claim under Illinois Consumer Fraud Act about disclosure of credit history for failure to prove damages).
317. The VPPA is one such exception. 18 U. S. C. § 2710 (c) (2) (providing for liquidated damages of $2, 500, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees).
318. See FED. R. Civ. P.23 (a) (2).
319. See Joel R. Reidenberg, E-Commerce and Trans-Atlantic Privacy, 38 Hous. L. REV. 717, 731-33 (2001).
320. Council Directive 95/46, On the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O. J. (L 281) 31, 34, 38-39 [hereinafter EU Directive].
321. See Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R. S. C., ch. P-8.6 (2000) (Can.) ;
322. Act on the Protection of Personal Information, Law No. 57 of 2003 (Japan).
323. EU Directive, supra note 194, at art. 20.
324. U. S. Dep't of Commerce, Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (July 21, 2000), http://www.export. gov/safeharbor/eu/eg-main-018475.asp;
325. see Reidenberg, supra note 193, at 744-46 (noting that the Safe Harbor requirements are weaker than European privacy law but stronger than U. S. privacy law).
326. See Reidenberg, supra note 193, at 745;
327. U. S. Dep't of Commerce, Safe Harbor Overview, http://www.export.gov/ safeharbor/SH-Overview.asp (last visited May 26, 2009).
328. See Facebook, Facebook Principles EU Safe Harbor Participation (Nov. 26, 2008), http://www.facebook.com/policy.php.
329. See U. S. Dep't of Commerce, Safe Harbor List, http://web.ita.doc.gov/ safeharbor/SHList.nsf (last visited May 26, 2009).
330. MySpace, Privacy Policy (Feb. 28, 2008), http://www.myspace.com/index. cfm?fuseaction=misc.privacy ("When a Member who is located in the European Union chooses to post Profile Information that will be publicly disclosed, that Member is responsible for ensuring that such information conforms to all local data protection laws. MySpace is not responsible under the EU local data protection laws for Member-posted information. ").
331. Lawson v. Accusearch Inc., [2007] F. C. R. 314 (Can.).
332. Lawson Complaint, supra note 82. The complaint alleges that Facebook provides too little notice about the disclosure of information through its social marketing programs and that the manner in which it secures consent for disclosures is inadequate. Id. at 14-17. Facebook's chief privacy officer replied in a statement that the complaint misinterpreted Canadian data protection law and contained "serious factual errors-most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users." Tamsyn Burgmann, Federal Privacy Commissioner Launches Facebook Probe, Globe & Mail, May 30, 2008, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ story/RTGAM.20080530. wgtfacebookprobe0530/BNStory/Technology/.
333. See Burgmann, supra note 203.
334. 15 U. S. C. § 1125 (a) (1) (A) (2006).
335. See, e.g., Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums Inc., 381 F.3d 477, 489-90 (5th Cir. 2004) ;
336. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411 F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir. 1969).
337. See, e.g., Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U. S. 359 (1924) ;
338. Bumble Bee Seafoods, L. L. C. v. UFS Indus., Inc., 71 U. S. P. Q.2d (BNA) 1684 (S. D. N. Y. July 20, 2004).
339. See, e.g., Fed'n Internationale de Football Ass'n v. Nike, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D. D. C. 2003) ;
340. cf. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns Co. v. Pink Panther Patrol, 774 F. Supp. 869 (S. D. N. Y. 1991) (finding that the name "Pink Panther Patrol" of a gay rights organization infringed on the Pink Panther trademark by suggesting sponsorship of the movie character).
341. See, e.g., Tin Pan Apple, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 737 F. Supp. 826, 833-36 (S. D. N. Y. 1990) ;
342. see also infra Part III. C (discussing publicity rights and other "persona rights").
343. Consumers need not understand the ownership of a company or the exact provenance of a product if they recognize the brand identity. See Mastercrafters Clock & Radio Co. v. Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc., 221 F.2d 464, 466 (2d Cir. 1955) ;
344. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF Unfair Competition § 9, cmt. c (1995).
345. See, e.g., In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 94 (1879) ("At common law the exclusive right to [a trademark] grows out of its use, and not its mere adoption. ") ;
346. Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int'l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996) ("It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of ownership is priority of use. To acquire ownership of a trademark it is not enough to have invented the mark first or even to have registered it first; the party claiming ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.").
347. See 15 U. S. C. § 1119 (2006) (allowing courts to cancel registration of trademarks that are abandoned or otherwise lack the requirements for protection) ;
348. id. § 1127 (defining "abandonment").
349. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 13 (defining the distinctiveness requirement for trademark protection).
350. But see Mark P. McKenna, The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law, 82 NOTRE Dame L. Rev. 1839, 1849-73 (2007) (arguing that goals of producer protection were woven into trademark law from its inception).
351. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U. S. 159, 163-64 (1995) ;
352. Robert G. Bone, Enforcement Costs and Trademark Puzzles, 90 Va. L. Rev. 2099, 2104-08 (2004) ;
353. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective, 30 J. L. & ECON. 265, 268-70 (1987) ;
354. William McGeveran, Four Free Speech Goals for Trademark Law, 18 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. Media & Ent. L. J. 1205, 1207-12 (2008). Secondarily, trademark rights also preserve incentives for producers to maintain the quality of their product, since they, not some imposter, will reap the rewards of repeat patronage when buyers like their products. Even this is usually explained as a benefit for consumers rather than producers because it rewards investment in high-quality goods. See Qualitex, 514 U. S. at 164.
355. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 14. The rule quite sensibly seeks to protect "the opportunity for similarly-named persons to exploit their name in business." Id. § 14 cmt. e.
356. See 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 13:8 (4th ed. 2008).
357. Elsewhere I have criticized this doctrine and suggested improvements. See William McGeveran, Rethinking Trademark Fair Use, 94 IOWA L. REV. 49, 51-54 (2008).
358. Compare, e.g., Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2002)
359. with Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 412-13 (9th Cir. 1996).
360. See 2 McCarthy, supra note 217, § 30:58 ("Monetary liability in trademark cases without fault or knowingly performing illegal acts seems to give most judges considerable pause. However, evidence of actual confusion of some customers or evidence of actual losses suffered by plaintiff will often supply the missing element even where defendant ignorantly blundered into an infringing act. Such actual confusion or damage is notoriously difficult to prove, let alone quantify.")
361. See supra note 190 and accompanying text.
362. See 15 U. S. C. § 1117 (a) (2006).
363. See id. § 1125 (a) (1) (B).
364. Ellen P. Goodman, Peer Promotions and False Advertising Law, 58 S. C. L. REV. 683 (2007).
365. Id. at 703. In contrast, Goodman concluded that a "pure peer" promotion without any involvement by the brand owner is noncommercial speech and unregulated by false advertising law.
366. Id. at 700.
367. See generally Richard A. De Sevo, Consumer Standing Under Section 43 (a) : An Issue Whose Time Has Passed, 88 Trademark Rep. 1 (1998) (reviewing and analyzing court decisions on consumer standing under the Lanham Act).
368. See, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1107-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding after lengthy analysis that the singer's "standing was sufficiently established by the likelihood that the wrongful use of his professional trademark, his unique voice, would injure him commercially") ;
369. Allen v. Nat'l Video, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 612, 625-26 (S. D. N. Y. 1985) (making a comparison to trademarks and finding that "[a] celebrity has a similar commercial investment in the 'drawing power' of his or her name and face in endorsing products and in marketing a career").
370. See Kournikova v. Gen. Media Comms. Inc., 64 U. S. P. Q.2d (BNA) 1614, 1619 (CD. Cal. 2002).
371. See generally Rebecca Tushnet, It Depends on What the Meaning of "False" Is: Falsity and Misleadingness in Commercial Speech Doctrine, 41 LOY. L. A. L. Rev. 227 (2007).
372. See Haemmerli, supra note 134, at 479-80 ("The term 'persona' has long been used to describe the facet of personality that is presented to the outside world. It is a useful and desirable term because it evokes human personality and, in turn, human freedom.").
373. See discussion supra Part II. C.
374. Post, supra note 127, at 667.
375. Pavesich v. New Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S. E. 68 (Ga. 1905) ;
376. see 1 MCCARTHY, supra note 132, § 1.18 ("Most of the courts accepting the Pavesich view emphasized that the right was personal and not proprietary.").
377. Prosser, supra note 157, at 401-07.
378. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (1977).
379. See, e.g., N. Y. Civ. RIGHTS Law § 51 (McKinney 1992) ;
380. Cal. Civ. CODE § 3344-3344.6 (West 1997).
381. See Prosser, supra note 157, at 406-07 ("The interest protected is not so much a mental as a proprietary one, in the exclusive use of the plaintiff's name and likeness as an aspect of his identity.").
382. See, e.g., Jim Henson Prods., Inc. v. John T. Brady & Assocs., 867 F. Supp. 175, 188-89 (S. D. N. Y. 1994) ("The privacy-based action is designed for individuals who have not placed themselves in the public eye. It shields such people from the embarrassment of having their faces plastered on billboards and cereal boxes without their permission. The interests protected are dignity and peace of mind, and damages are measured in terms of emotional distress.") ;
383. McCarthy, supra note 132, §§ 5:63-5:67. But see Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 1983) (conflating Prosser's appropriation tort with publicity rights and requiring commercial harm for recovery under appropriation).
384. See, e.g., Joe Dickerson & Assocs. v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995, 1002 (Colo. 2001) ("A plaintiff whose identity had no commercial value might still experience mental anguish based on an unauthorized use of her name and likeness."). But cf. Jackson v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 574 F. Supp. 10, 13 (S. D. Ohio 1983) ("[I]n order to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy by appropriation, the complaint must allege that plaintiff's name or likeness has some intrinsic value, which was taken by defendant for its own benefit, commercial or otherwise.").
385. Nimmer, supra note 138, at 203.
386. Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir. 1953).
387. See RESTATEMENT (Third) OF Unfair COMPETITION § 46 cmt. d (1995) ("[T]he identity of even an unknown person may possess commercial value.").
388. See Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1103 (9th Cir. 1992)
389. (citing Grant v. Esquire, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 876, 880-81 (S. D. N. Y. 1973)) ;
390. see also Kwall, supra note 132, at 35-38 (discussing celebrities' emotional and dignitary interests in their public identities).
391. See 1 MCCARTHY, supra note 132, § 5:63.
392. See 2 McCarthy, supra note 132, §§ 9:17-9:40, 10:6-10:14 (collecting cases).
393. See, e.g., Peter L. Felcher & Edward L. Rubin, Comment, The Descendibility of the Right of Publicity: Is There Commercial Life After Death?, 89 YALE L. J. 1125 (1980) ;
394. Melissa B. Jacoby & Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, Foreclosing on Fame: Exploring the Uncharted Boundaries of the Right of Publicity, 77 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1322 (2002) ;
395. Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Is Independence Day Dawning for the Right of Publicity?, 17 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 191, 207-28 (1983);
396. David Westfall & David Landau, Publicity Rights as Property Rights, 23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 71 (2005).
397. See Sheldon W. Halpern, Essay, The Right of Publicity: Maturation of an Independent Right Protecting the Associative Value of Personality, 46 Hastings L. J. 853, 859-66 (1995).
398. N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51 (McKinney Supp. 2009) ;
399. see Burck v. Mars, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 446, 451-54 (S. D. N. Y. 2008) (wrestling with the definition of identity under the New York statute).
400. See, e.g., Wendt v. Host Int'l, Inc., 125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1997) ;
401. White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) ;
402. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983).
403. Cf. Stacey L. Dogan, An Exclusive Right to Evoke, 44 B. C. L. Rev. 291 (2003).
404. Pavesich v. New Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S. E. 68 (Ga. 1905).
405. Posting of William McGeveran to Info/Law, Facebook Inserting Users into Ads, http://blogs. law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/11/08/facebook-social-ads/(Nov. 8, 2007) ;
406. Posting of Daniel J. Solove to Concurring Opinions, The New Facebook Ads-Starring You: Another Privacy Debacle?, http://www.concurringopinions.com/ archives/2007/11/the-new-faceboo.html (Nov. 8, 2007, 11:27).
407. See Lane Complaint, supra note 7, at 40-57.
408. See supra notes 186-89 and accompanying text (critiquing the ECPA claim in the Lane complaint).
409. Morganstern, supra note 4, at 192-95 (analyzing the impact of Facebook's terms of service on potential privacy lawsuits and noting that, although the choice of forum clause favors California and the choice of law clause favors Delaware, it is not clear whether California precedents would dictate enforcement of the choice of law clause) ;
410. see Facebook, Terms of Use, Sept. 23, 2008, http://www.facebook.com/ terms.php.
411. See, e.g., FED. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (2) (requiring common questions of law or fact for certification of class action) ;
412. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (3) (allowing class actions where such common questions predominate over other issues and aggregation allows superior efficiency).
413. For discussion of this complex issue, see generally In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1300 (7th Cir. 1995) ;
414. Allan Erbsen, From "Predominance" to "Resolvability": A New Approach to Regulating Class Actions, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 995, 1076-78 (2005) ;
415. Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N. Y. U. L. REV. 547, 581-88 (1996).
416. See 1 MCCARTHY, supra note 132, §§ 3:34-3:35.
417. Posting by Saul Hansell to N. Y. Times Bits Blog, Are Facebook's Social Ads Illegal?, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ll/08/are-facebooks-social-ads- illegal/(Nov. 8, 2007, 17:28) (reporting that Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly "said the advertisements are simply a 'representation' of the action users have taken: choosing to link themselves to a product").
418. N. Y. Civ. Rights L. § 51 (McKinney Supp. 2009).
419. See supra notes 190-201, 220-22 and accompanying text.
420. See, e.g., Midler v. Young & Rubicam Inc., 22 U. S. P. Q. 2d (BNA) 1478 (9th Cir. 1991) ($400, 000 for Bette Midler's singing voice).
421. See Cal. Civ. Code. § 3344(a) (West 1997) (providing minimum statutory damages of $750) ;
422. Ind. Code. Ann. § 32-36-1-10 (1) (A) (LexisNexis 2002) ($1000) ;
423. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 597.810 (b) (1) (Lexis Nexis 2004) ($750) ;
424. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 26.013(a) (1) (Vernon 2000) ($2, 500). In comparison, the VPPA's statutory damages figure is $2500.
425. U. S. C. § 2710 (c) (2006).
426. 2 MCCARTHY, supra note 132, § 11:29.
427. See Janger & Schwartz, supra note 168 (criticizing Gramm-Leach-Bliley enforcement) ;
428. Office of Inspector Gen., U. S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Nationwide Review of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Oversight (October 2008), http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region4/40705064.pdf (criticizing HIPAA enforcement).
429. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Privacy Initiatives, http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/(last visited May 26, 2009).
430. See, e.g., Steven Hetcher, The FTC as Internet Privacy Norm Entrepreneur, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2041 (2000) ;
431. Reidenberg, supra note 84;
432. Jeff Sovern, Protecting Privacy with Deceptive Trade Practices Legislation, 69 FORDHAM L. Rev. 1305 (2001).
433. See Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 C. F. R. § 314.1 (2008).
434. The FTC web site lists a number of data security cases the agency has pursued in recent years. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Privacy Initiatives, Enforcement, http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/promises-enf.html (last visited May 26, 2009).
435. See Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 73 Fed. Reg. 72, 374 (Nov. 28, 2008) (to be codified at 16 C. F. R. pt. 255).
436. See Federal Trade Commission, Definitions and Implementation Under the CAN-SPAM Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 29, 654 (May 21, 2008) (to be codified at 16 C. F. R. pt. 316).
437. See Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Staff Report: Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising (Feb. 2009), http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/ P085400behavadreport.pdf.
438. See Stephanie Clifford, Many See Privacy on Web as Big Issue, Survey Says, N. Y. TIMES, Mar. 16, 2009, at B5 (reporting survey that found only 28 percent of people were comfortable with behavioral targeting) ; IAB Behavioral Targeting: Secret Weapon in Display Ad's Arsenal, http://www.iab.net/insights- research/iab-research/1675/368205 (July 2008) (projecting an increase in industry spending on behavioral advertising).
439. See Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 73 Fed. Reg. at 72, 378-79;
440. Association of National Advertisers, Press Release, FTC Announces Potential Changes to Endorsement & Testimonial Guidelines (Dec. 3, 2008), http://www.ana.net/advocacy/content/1529.
441. See supra Part II. A.
442. Posting of Paul Barsch to Marketing Profs Daily Fix, Behavioral Targeting-Where's the Fine Line?, http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2008/08/behavioral- targeting-wheres-th.html (Aug. 13, 2008) ;
443. see also Posting of Andy Chen to ClickZ, The Three Dimensions of Behavioral Targeting, http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3401511 (Sept. 1, 2004).
444. See 15 U. S. C. § 45 (a) (1) (2006).
445. See Sovern, supra note 267, at 1326-39.
446. See, e.g., Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-40 (1944).
447. See Hetcher, supra note 267, at 2046-52.
448. See Restatement (Second) OF Torts § 652D cmt. b (1977) ("[T]here is no liability for giving further publicity to what the plaintiff himself leaves open to the public eye.").
449. But cf. Nader v. Gen. Motors Corp., 255 N. E. 2d 765, 771 (N. Y. 1970) (distinguishing between casual observation and "overzealous" surveillance in applying this rule).
450. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 33 (1995).
451. See supra Part I. C.
452. See Face book, Visual Bookshelf, http://www.facebook.com/apps/ application. php?id=2481647302 (last visited May 26, 2009).
453. See http://www.netflix.com/Community (log-in required) (last visited May 26, 2009).
454. SlideShare, Razorfish, Portable Social Graphs: Imagining Their Potential, http://www.slideshare.net/shivsingh/portable-social-graphs-imagining-their- potential-presentation (last visited May 26, 2009) (providing mock-ups of hypothetical implementations of Facebook Connect by Amazon, iTunes, and iPhone games) ;
455. see also Posting of Om Malik to GigaOm, supra note 43 (predicting Facebook Connect could emerge as "a highly effective advertising platform") ;
456. Rafe Needleman, Facebook Connect: Scary but Good, CNET News (Dec. 1, 2008), http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939-109-10110382-2.html (describing benefits to sites implementing Facebook Connect).
457. See Facebook Developers, Facebook Connect Policies, http://wiki. developers.facebook.com/index.php/Facebook-Connect-Policies#Feed (last visited May 26, 2009). Somewhat confusingly, the policies require a "feed form" seeking consent, but contemplate an approval process-yet to be determined-that would allow developers to skip this step. The policies also articulate "Best Practices" under which developers "should add a check box" to the feed form seeking consent, which could "be pre-checked by default." These policies are quite unclear and seem to send mixed messages about the level of genuine consent built in to Facebook Connect.
458. See, e.g., Post, supra note 127, at 667-70 (expressing concern that right of publicity commodifies personality and detaches it from context of individual circumstances and social arrangements).
459. See Pamela Samuelson, Privacy as Intellectual Property?, 52 STAN. L. REV. 1125, 1157-58 (2000) (calling the debate a "quasi-religious war to resolve whether the nature of a person's interest in her personal data is a fundamental civil liberty or [a] commodity interest") ;
460. Paul M. Schwartz, Internet Privacy and the State, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 815, 815-16 (2000) (criticizing "deeply flawed rhetoric" of market-state dichotomy).
461. See, e.g., Margaret Jane Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 STAN. L. REV. 957, 957-58 (1982) ;
462. Charles A. Reich, The New Property, 73 YALE L. J. 733, 739-46 (1964).
463. Volokh, supra note 150, at 1049-51;
464. see also C. Edwin Baker, Autonomy and Informational Privacy or Gossip: The Central Meaning of the First Amendment, 21 SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y 215, 219-20 (2004) ;
465. Zimmerman, supra note 162, at 292-94.
466. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 64-65 (1983) ;
467. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 759-65 (1976).
468. Va. State Bd., 425 U. S. at 762 (quoting Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 385 (1973)).
469. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U. S. 557, 564-66 (1980) ;
470. see Trans Union Corp. v. FTC, 245 F.3d 809, 818-19 (D. C. Cir. 2001).
471. But see U. S. West, Inc. v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding regulators' asserted state interest in privacy insufficient to sustain regulation under Central Hudson).
472. See Trans Union, 245 F.3d at 817-19;
473. Neil M. Richards, Reconciling Data Privacy and the First Amendment, 52 UCLA L. REV. 1149, 1192 (2005).
474. See Volokh, supra note 150, at 1080-84. More precisely, it is purely a form of advertising as to the marketer, whose speech interests would be at issue in an attack on social marketing. Arguably, messages sent through social networking sites with consent also could implicate speech interests of the consenting customer. In this scenario, however, my proposal would not impose any restrictions against the speaker.
475. See, e.g., Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 75 F.3d 1391, 1400-01 (9th Cir. 1996) ;
476. MCCARTHY, supra note 132, § 7:3 (collecting cases).
477. Cf. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U. S. 562, 578-79 (1977) (upholding publicity rights against First Amendment challenge).
478. See Jay P. Kesan & Rajiv C. Shah, Shaping Code, 18 Harv. J. L. & TECH. 319, 321 (2005) ;
479. Lawrence Lessig, Law Regulating Code Regulating Law, 35 LOY. U. CHI. L. J. 1, 14 (2003) ;
480. Joel R. Reidenberg, Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology, 76 TEX. L. Rev. 553, 570 (1998).
481. Hetcher, supra note 267, at 2052.
482. See generally Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 207;
483. David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. Rev. 1367 (1996) ;
484. Lawrence Lessig, The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999).
485. See Johnson & Post, supra note 301, at 1367.
486. See Easterbrook, supra note 301, at 207-08.