Cyber Law Assignment: Detailed Analysis of Facebook and Airbnb Cases

This assignment analyzes two significant cyber law cases: Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC and AIRBNB, INC. v. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN. The Facebook case examines allegations of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets, focusing on the dispute over the origi...Read More

Running head: CYBER LAW
CYBER LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CYBER LAW
Question 1
Fact
In this question the case of Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu LLC, NO. C 07-01389 (RS)
(N.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2007), is to be reviewed. In this case ConnectU filed a lawsuit against
Facebook and the executives of the Facebook for the commission of infringement of copyright,
implied contract’s breach, trade secret’s misappropriation, breach of the fiduciary duty, unfair
practices of business, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with the advantage of
prospective business, breach of duty of fair dealing and good faith, breach of confidence and
fraud.
There are several parties in this case. ConnectU was the plaintiff of this case and the
defendants were Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Eduardo Saverin,
Christopher Hughes and Thefacebook LLC.
A lawsuit was filed by the ConnectU against the Facebook which alleged that an oral
contract was breached by the creator of the Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg for using the idea and
source code of the ConnectU team and creating TheFacebook.com using that idea and source
code. The plaintiff was motivated to take legal action as they believed that Mark Zuckerberg
copied their idea and used the same to form up a competing networking site name Facebook
(Gonçalves, 2018).
The following are some of the major facts of the case: Mark Zuckerberg was approached
on November 2003 by Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss and DivyaNarendra to join the
HarvardConnection team. On 25th November, 2003 a meeting was held between the

2CYBER LAW
aforementioned persons, where an oral contract was alleged to be entered by Zuckerberg.On 11th
January 2004, the domain named thefacebook.com was registered by Zuckerberg. On 12thJanuary
2004, an e-mail was sent by Zuckerberg to Eduardo Saverin stating that the completion of
thefacebook.com was almost done and marketing strategies need to be discussed. On 6th
February, 2004 Narendra and Winklevoss came to know about thefacebook.com from a
newspaper article named The Harvard Crimson. On 10th February, 2004 a cease and desist letter
was sent to Zuckerberg by Narendra and the Winklevoss. After these incidents a lawsuit was
filed against Facebook for the braech of oral contract and using idea and source code for creating
thefacebook.com (Hatten, 2015).
Issue
Whether Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg would be liable for the commission of oral
contract breach and infringement of copyright.
Whether any public policy is being violated by the Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.
Whether there is presence of any values in conflict and which value is to be considered as
more important.
Whether the plaintiff has the option of going to the court of law to claim relief or
compensation.
Arguments
It was argued by the ConnectU team that Mark Zuckerberg has made a breach of contract
and also used the idea and source code of the ConnectU for the creation of Facebook. It was
alleged in the suit that their idea has been copied and the source code has been illegally used by

3CYBER LAW
Zuckerberg for the creation of Facebook. A countersuit has been filed by the Facebook against
The Winklevoss Chang Group regarding a project named Social Butterfly.
Applicable laws
According to Section 102 of the Copyright Act 1976, literary works, dramatic works,
musical works, choreographic and pantomimes works, sculptural, graphic and pictorial works,
sound recordings, motion pictures and any other audiovisual works and architectural works are
protected under copyright.
Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1986(CFAA), information theft has been
termed as an offence. In this regard the United States v Sergey Aleynikov, 2011 can be supported
where,Aleynikov was a Goldman Sachs programmer who had been accused of copying high-
frequency trading code. He was charged with the offense of trade secret theft and transportation
of stolen property. Another case is the LVRC Holdings v. Brekka581 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.
2009), where Brekka was sued by the LVRC for taking clients information and using the same
for creating a competitive business of his own.
Conclusion
There are two rulings in this case, one dismissing the three individual defendants because
of the absence of jurisdiction and in the later ruling Facebook’s sanction claim against the
ConnectU and some individual defendants as the court determined the facial inconsistency is
reconcilable and the sanction was rejected.

4CYBER LAW
Question 2
Fact
In this question the case of AIRBNB, INC. v. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN 2014 NY
Slip Op 24129 [44 Misc 3d 351]is to be reviewed. In this case an application was made for
quashing of the served subpoena in matter of Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman in relation
to the client of the petitioner that the rent apartment which is located in the State of New York
via internet platform of the petitioner. Airbnb, Inc. is the petitioner in this case and the
respondent is the Eric T. Schneiderman.The petitioner specifically asserts the subpoena needs to
be instantly quashed as: there exists no articulable and reasonable basis of warranting the
investigation and an unfounded expedition of fishing were constituted by the subpoena; any
investigation on the basis of laws which are vague unconstitutionally (Streitfeld, 2014). The
subpoena is burdensome and overbroad and it seeks private and confidential information form
the user of the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the issuance of the subpoena had
no factual basis of the Attorney general and the petitioner was used as a staff of investigation in
order to help in determining the recent hotel tax and the meaning of the occupancy laws
(Jefferson-Jones, 2014).
Issue
Whether the quashing of the served subpoena in matter of Attorney General Eric T.
Schneiderman in relation to the client of the petitioner that the rent apartment which is located in
the State of New York via internet platform of the petitioner can be applied.

5CYBER LAW
Arguments
It was argued by the petitioner that the issuance of the subpoena had no factual basis of
the Attorney general and the petitioner was used as a staff of investigation in order to help in
determining the recent hotel tax and the meaning of the occupancy laws.
Applicable laws
The Executive law gives the authority of investigating the allegations of the possible
violation of law and the ability of serving subpoenas has been encompassed by the authority.
Article 1 and 4(8) (a) of the 1982 Loft Law provides class A dwelling as a multiple dwelling
which occupies for the purpose of permanent residence. Section 304 of the 1982 Loft Law says
that violating the law of multiple dwelling constitutes misdemeanor. In Gordon v Rush, 100
NY2d 236, 242 [2003], it was laid down that an obligation is imposed by the action, denial of
rights and fixing certain legal relationship of the process of administration.
Conclusion
In this case it was the petitioner’s application for the quashing of the subpoena as
overbroad and the cross motion of compelling by the respondent was denied.

6CYBER LAW
Reference
1982 Loft Law
AIRBNB, INC. v. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN 2014 NY Slip Op 24129 [44 Misc 3d 351]
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1986
Copyright Act 1976
Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu LLC, NO. C 07-01389 (RS) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2007)
Gonçalves, T. (2018). M&A@ facebook (Doctoral dissertation).
Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, 242 [2003]
Hatten, J. N. (2015). United States District Court.
Jefferson-Jones, J. (2014). Airbnb and the housing segment of the modern sharing economy: Are
short-term rental restrictions an unconstitutional taking. Hastings Const. LQ, 42, 557.
LVRC Holdings v. Brekka 581 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)
Streitfeld, D. (2014). Airbnb listings mostly illegal, New York state contends. International New
York Times.
United States v Sergey Aleynikov, 2011