Oregon Woman Sues Yahoo for $3 Million 670
bigtallmofo writes "After notifying Yahoo that two member profiles about her were not authorized, Cecilia Barnes of Oregon is suing Yahoo for $3 million for failing to take down the profiles in a timely manner. The profiles allegedly set up by her ex-boyfriend contained nude photos of her along with her email address and work phone number. (Note: The member profiles have since been taken down by Yahoo)."
Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that this woman is not the first person who has had an ex-boyfriend/husband/lover post nude pictures of them on the net.
Yeah, usenet is much more effective (Score:5, Funny)
Re:don't be dumb enough to pose for nude photos (Score:4, Interesting)
People will come around tho.. either we'll stop feeding peoples' bad ethics (spreading gossip), or people will wise up.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the ethics issue.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, on the other hand, the part of her argument that does hold water is that she asked for the profiles to be taken down since they were fradulent. I do think it is reasonable to expect a reasonable turn around time from the company if you find something out there that you did not post. According to the article, she sent requests over three months, and received no response.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you'd sue the store for letting the ex put piles of the printed pictures on their floor for anyone to take.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:4, Interesting)
You aint kidding. Take walk over to Empornium [empornium.us] and check out the Homemade section. Revenge porn is a booming sector.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Funny)
GREAT.....now just another reason it gets harder and harder to get your girlfriend to let you take nekkid shots of her....
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? The ex doesn't have 3 million dollars, after all............
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of a lawsuit isn't always to get the money, it's to get the attention of the company in question. Since Yahoo ignored her for several months, and the lawsuit got the profiles pulled, I'd say 3 million is a great number.
Also, with a $$ driven corporation, the only way to effect change is to impact their profit margin. Asking for $1,000 wouldn't have been enough money to make Yahoo change any policies. But if she gets even a fraction of the three million, Yahoo will have to start taking removal requests a little more seriously.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:2)
They'll give dead people's email to families, but won't take down nude photos at the subject's request? That's odd.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:2)
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure he is next.
Yahoo the site is just a tool, it would seem the person who posted those pictures should be the one to be sued not the tool which was misused.
The article states that she requested that the information be removed on several occasions. They didn't comply with her requests. That could make them jointly liable to the original act.
That is what the court will have to decide.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
The women does not legally own all nude pictures of herself. Her phone numbers do not legally receive any special priveledge either, or phone books would be outlawed.
Your points are well taken, but the problem with this case is that her ex- used the profile to solicit sex from strangers who showed up at her workplace. Posting the information and pretending to be her is fraud.
Posting nude pictures of her by itselfisn't something I would consider act
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Funny)
He doesn't have three million dollars.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Now AOL might not be required to take down her pictures and / or contact information but clearly letting him continue to use there system for months after they had been notified he was committing fraud with their system exposes them to some risk.
IMO 3mil seems like a reasonable level of compensation for an organization that willfully allowed such level of harassment to continue for months. It's not like she is trying to get them to verify all information in their system just to have a system to take information down in the event it's misused. Think of the risk they would be taking if the pictures where of a 13 year old and they waited months to take them down.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing too, or else I'd no longer have any use for this interweb thing.
We'll never know (Score:2)
The chances of this going to trial are mathematically indistinguishable from zero. The $3E6 number is just a starting point for negotiating a settlement, whose terms will (as always) be undisclosed.
How much influence this would have on MSN and others, given that outcome, is speculative but I doubt that it materially affects their plans.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Funny)
Any examples?
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
She didn't post the photos in public.
You make nude photos of yourself then sorry, if they get posted somewhere its only your own fault and nobody else.
No, if someone steals your property it is the perpetrators fault.
No scruples, and no right to sue.
So whatever you do as an adult, with another adult, in the privacy of your own home, should be considered by a court in a civil action?
Dude, I think you are way off base on that one.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
P: No, if someone steals your property it is the perpetrators fault.
This is an IP violation, not a property case. How is this any different than: "You make a feature film then sorry, if it gets posted somewhere it's your own fault and nobody else"
Collectively, I don't think that the
Re:I don't think they're liable. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is plenty of case law holds that bars and taverns are liable if they knowingly serve people who are visibly intoxicated who then drive and kill or injure someone on the road. If Yahoo was asked on more than one occasion to have the information removed, they could be held liable.
As I said, that is what the court will decide in this case.
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Adult Groups a Liability Risk (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, have you even seen the whole case of the hot-coffee lawsuit? Or checked the facts [lawandhelp.com]?
That was an old woman, and the coffee was spilled down her lap and other surrounding areas causing third degree burns on that required skin grafts and a hospital stay for seven-days.
She had approached them first for medical compensation and was refused, at which point she sued them. And incidentally, a judge later lowered the awarding amount to merely $480,000, which the media never publicized.
And btw, McDonalds serves their coffee at 185 degrees, a good 20 degrees more than other restaurants - there have been cases of folks with first degree burns because of that.
At the temperature that McDonalds serves their coffee, it just takes about five seconds for first degree burns to occur - which would require skin grafting.
Next time you shoot off your mouth without knowing the facts, you might want to look at the reasons why some lawsuits may have been won. I hate frivolous lawsuits too, but that doesn't mean I walk around talking nonsense.
lawandhelp.com, huh (Score:3, Insightful)
My idea for a new google product (Score:5, Funny)
Enter somebody's name, find all known nude photographs of that person. Needn't even be celebrities.
Re:My idea for a new google product (Score:5, Insightful)
But of the tons of people on the internet, how many would you REALLY want to see naked?
Re:My idea for a new google product (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My idea for a new google product (Score:3, Funny)
But of the tons of people on the internet, how many would you REALLY want to see naked?
http://nudes.google.com/~CowboyNeal
Re:My idea for a new google product (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My idea for a new google product (Score:3, Interesting)
Important note? (Score:5, Funny)
Someone doesn't have a very high opinion of /.ers!
Re:Important note? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be silly! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Important note? (Score:3, Funny)
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:2)
Re:You know... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get your facts about lawsuits from lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
McFact: 185 degrees is the proper temperature for coffee, not a problem to be solved.
McFact: Some other restaraunts had it 20 degrees lower out of fear of lawsuits and at the expense of the coffee's taste.
McFact: McDonalds refused her original claim not because they were being jerks but because if they admitted fault, they would be open for even more lawsuits.
McFact: Lack of personal resposibility is ruining many of life's experiences for everyone.
Re:Don't get your facts about lawsuits from lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
McFact: McDonalds made it a choice to brew, store, and serve their coffee beyond the normal 185F. The manual in the 80s listed 195F. Rather than using thermometers they turned up the heat to boiling and turned it down a notch resulting in a pour temp of over 195F, into sealed styrofoam mugs.
McFact: 185F coffee does not cause 3rd degree burns. 2nd degree burns are possible. Surgery and skin grafts are not required f
Re:Don't get your facts about lawsuits from lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Get your facts from the court documents and findings. There was clear evidence of contributory negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the court punished them for it. Note also that the court found both parties responsible (that is, both Stella Liebeck and McDonald's), so your "no personal responsibility" spiel can go suck it, as far as this case is concerned.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
from a coffee maker states the recomended serving temperature is 75 degrees C (167 fahrenheit). The correct Brewing temperature is 185-195. But rather then nit-pick about temperature. Here's why McDonalds lost: ( Mcfacts snipped from a site, others collected elsewhere)
1: The injured women initially wanted $800 from McDonalds to pay for extra medical bills, to which McDonald's dismissed.
2. Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes. (source http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm [osmond-riba.org])
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
It all comes down to, if you are in the business of dealing with materials you know are hazerdous (as was proven in the case, McDonalds knew the coffee was hazerdous), you are responsible for selling such materials in a safe maner because the consumer expects you to do so. If you were "Battery Acid King" and sold sulphuric acid in open topped beverage glasses, people might assume you don't think its dangerous.
minor details you got incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
And, the woman received $160,000 in compensatory damages plus $480,000 (i.e. 3x compensatory) in punitive damages.
coffee ignorance, and other trivia (Score:4, Insightful)
The ideal temperature for brewing coffee is just under the boiling point, you want it as hot as possible without "burning" it, something unfortunately not possible at home given the low power of most of our coffee makers, unless you buy a pretty exotic one. It shouldn't be left sitting around long before serving, either.
I realize that it's a false dichotomy since we're talking about McDonald's coffee, but still, there is a tension between having good, fresh coffee on the one hand, and accomodating the amazingly stupid people who can't be expected to hold a cup properly on the other. Most places accomodate the stupid people, since they're obviously a pretty big chunk of the population. But still, it's a shame.
The fallacy here is that you're going to transfer the heat to flesh at all efficiently by splashing the liquid over it, such that the flesh will reach the same temperature as the fluid. Hopefully the average Slashdot reader sees the BS here.
It is really just a shame that our society is being shaped to accomodate the stupid, boring people in so many areas and so many ways. They ought to stay at home where they won't get hurt, eat their TV dinners and avoid sharp objects and dangerous ideas.
We've really dumbed down the definition of "hazardous", haven't we? Stay off those stairs! They are hazardous!
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that there was a federal regulation that required coffee to be served below a specific temperature. Oh... there's not? If it's so damned dangerous, why not?!?!
The whole point of the civil courts is to allow regress of issues wihtout the need for endless federal regulation. Perhaps you'd like a federal regulation listing the maximum tempurature of all hot fuilds (itemized by distinct type of course, since coffee and Capachino would be different)? Maybe we should forbid starbucks from creating new drinks until the regulators have time to add it to the list? Or perhaps we should rely on the courts to punish stupid companies when their greed makes them create dangerous products?
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
Again, it's a matter of liability. If they compensate, it opens the doors for further requests for compensation (yes, I understand that they'd settled other cases... still...)
SO your point is
Of course this makes perfect sense when you consider settlements are most often public and Court cases are most likely handled under NDA's... oops maybe i got that backwards...
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
The risk of 7-11 selling hot dogs is that someone could choke on it and sue them. Should they stop selling dogs? No, that would be unreasonable.
Lets consider if 7-11 imbedded into their hotdogs large unchewable pieces of plastic that they expected customers to remove before eating so they could save on meat. That they provide no warning that you should remove the plastic or esle you could choke and die. Finally at 7-11 they served them in the bun, covered in condoments ready to eat.
Yet they state to the court that they expected and belived that everyone who bought one returned to their homes, dug out the plastic then ate them. Then you would have an analogy.
Hell, they sell 1 BILLION cups of hot ass coffee a year... obviously someone likes it that way.
Is the reason they buy coffee at McDonalds is that its 'hot ass', or is it because they like some other food product that McDonald's serves in the morning? As well, is the reason McDonalds serves its coffee 'hot ass' is because people like it that way or is it because they can use an extra cheap variety of grinds because no one will figure out it tastes like ass when its 'hot ass'? (What was admitted to by McDonalds in court)
But then, maybe I'm missing all the people who line up at McDonalds just for the coffee (while I'm in the rather long line at Pete's) or maybe you should work on your reasoning skills.
Re:You know... (Score:2)
I can understand she is upset and wants some compensation for the "emotional stress" such an incident might have caused, but... $3 million...are you serious?
Sure she is. She wants to get rich, but I wouldn't be surprised if she got the money. The jury would see a huge, faceless company that will keep doing what they've been doing unless punished significantly. Yahoo can afford $3 million easily, but the prospect of more $3 million lawsuits coming in will make a difference.
Re:You know... (Score:2)
You don't sue the DOT when you get hit by a drunk driver. Why sue yahoo for having the service that showed the pics?
Re:You know... (Score:2)
Re:You know... (Score:2)
She sued yahoo for not taking them down when she asked them to.
And you certainly could sue the bar where he was visibly drunk for letting him drive home.
Re:You know... (Score:2)
Well, her ex probably doesn't have $3 million dollars to give her -- `you can't get blood from a turnip'. (Perhaps that's why she left him!) And she may not be able to prove that he did it anyways.
And she may sue him later. Who knows?
It seems reasonable to me for Yahoo to remove naked pictures of somebody when asked, especially when the person isn't the one who posted
Try this link (Score:2)
Here's an excerpt:
It doesn't mention drunk driving, but surely someone has sued the DOT after getting hit by a drunk driver. (Disclaimer: I only skimmed the article. It is one of many I found after doing a google search on Department Transportation lawsui
Re:You know... (Score:2)
I do not understand how it is that she is upset. She let someone, who was not married to her, take nude pictures of her. If it's your husband (or wife) taking the pictures, you have a bond that is both a moral and legal one. However, if you let some guy you met in a bar and have been dating for a while take pictures of you, when you break up on bad
Who's got the Mirror/Cache of the pics? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who's got the Mirror/Cache of the pics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking for the pictures isn't being a Troll. It's being pretty much human. We're a species of voyuers for the most part.
And yes, I replied to this particular article just to make sure I could find the URL that the AC responding to it posted when I get home.
But at least I'm honest about it.
Re:Who's got the Mirror/Cache of the pics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the Germans have a word for it, too: schadenfreude [reference.com].
Literal translation: Damage joy.
Before we all flood archive.org.. (Score:5, Informative)
Forget fingers in food... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Forget fingers in food... (Score:3, Insightful)
At which point it becomes a weapon to silence people who disagree with you.
Apologies. (Score:3, Funny)
We've already established that (Score:2)
Why do I suspect that if the hypothetical "typical woman" were offered a nude modeling job the price tag would be quite a bit less than $3 million? Aside, of course, from the fact that the going rate for nude models is so much lower.
Well, it's enough to get Yahoo's attention even if a jury wouldn't award that much. Gives room to negotiate down to a lower number and still come away with more than legal expenses.
Re:We've already established that (Score:2)
You'd be surpised what you can get for 20 dollars and a half gallon of Mad Dog... especially around college campuses and high schools.
Well I guess the real question is... (Score:2, Insightful)
So where's the mirror site? (Score:2)
Re-he-he-eally.... (Score:2)
Didn't she know Slashdotters would eventually learn of this exciting prOn treasure hunt challenge?
Gentleman, start your SEARCH ENGINES!!!
Another Excellent reason (Score:2)
who knows when a disgruntled boyfriend will post one's nudes (and pubes) on the net.
Re:Another Excellent reason (Score:2)
This stuff will destroy anonymity (Score:2)
*sniff, sniff* (Score:3, Interesting)
BF: "How can we get rich, honey?"
GF: "Take nude photos of me, then we 'break up'."
BF: "...and..."
GF: "Then you post them at Yahoo membership profiles..."
BF: "...and then..."
GF: "And then I gently ask Yahoo to take them down - if they take too long, we sue for..."
BF: "$1000 ?"
GF: (in a Doctor Evil imitation) "Three mill-eeee-own dollarz!!!!"
BF: *scrambles for the digital camera*
Re:*sniff, sniff* (Score:4, Funny)
GF: "We'll have to stay apart for at least a year or so, until things cool down...I'll, err, meet you at...the Starbucks in the Mall of America on January 3, 2007...yeah, that's it."
BF: "I'll miss y..."
GF: "...just get the damn camera."
Serious Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
The issues of who owns accounts, how they are handled when someone dies, and whether a host is responsible for verifying information in a public listing, have simply not yet been addressed, even though the web is 13 years old.
OKAY HERE THEY ARE! (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't get but the thumbnails, but they are good enought o see what's going on.
Re:OKAY HERE THEY ARE! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OKAY HERE THEY ARE! (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder she is sueing.
Re:OKAY HERE THEY ARE! (Score:3, Informative)
Don't ask yahoo, use /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2)
Welcome to the Morally Infant USA!
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2)
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2)
But you are a dumbass if you modded the previous comment +1 Insightful...
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2)
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2, Insightful)
It's sad that she trusted someone who was not trustworthy, but this is evidence of his lack of ethical s
Re:omg where r the pics!?111one a/s/l (Score:2)
But violating her privacy is not a line I'm going to cross.
Re:View the photos here :0] (Score:2)
I'll host the pics if someone will get them to me.
Re:View the photos here :0] (Score:2)
BTW, there's another set of pictures, copy and paste the *other* profile name into the link.
Ok, I wouldn't bother, they're not very good pics, they're pictures of a picture on a monitor.
Re:View the photos here :0] (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing comes up.
WAIT! Let me rephrase that!
(accidently clicks submit)
damn.
Re:Um guys... (Score:2)
Re:Why sue Yahoo and not the ex-boyfriend? (Score:2)
Re:Why sue Yahoo and not the ex-boyfriend? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
Barnes sent Yahoo a letter in January saying she did not create the profiles and wanted them removed. Additional attempts to get Yahoo to remove them in February and March did not get a response, the lawsuit claims.
So, basically, she's suing because Yahoo left the images up for three months after being contacted and asked to take them down. Considering her personal information went along the photos, not acting on the information in a timely fashion is pretty serious, because it helped prolong her harassment.
As for the boyfriend, he should probably be brought up on criminal charges.
Re:Why sue Yahoo and not the ex-boyfriend? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why sue Yahoo and not the ex-boyfriend? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I do think that Yahoo should leave them up until it is proven that the boyfriend didn'thave the right to post the material. Being an asshole is not necessarily a crime. If Yahoo takes stuff down on demand, without any kind of proof at all, people will abuse the process for fun and profit.
Perhaps proof was offered, I don
Yeah, she could have put them up herself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Scam (Score:2)
Re:Why is Yahoo! at fault? (Score:2)
Furthermore, Yahoo has more money than the ex-hubby, so Yahoo is of course a better target. Nothing new for lawyers to go after money instead of justice.
She's probably some broke-ass wite trash trailer garbage that found a lawyer willing to work on contingency.
No, it's not. (Score:2)
Re:Some People Just Cannot Live with Consequences (Score:2)
Re:Armchair legalistic speculation is teh suck. (Score:4, Informative)
Only the ownership of the video or photo, which doesn't mean they have the right to publish it.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
Maybe becasue of this little requirement for submissions to AFHV:
Entrants whose clips are chosen for inclusion in a program must sign a Release and Indemnity in the form presented attesting, among other things, to the fact that they are the rightful owners of the submitted clips and that the clip may be submitted and broadcast without obtaining permission from or making any payment to any third party. All persons appearing in the clips must sign consent forms and/or releases (which shall grant to Producer the right to use such person's name, voice and likeness) before the submission can be eligible for prize awards. Parent or guardian must sign the consent/release form for minors. Failure to provide requested releases and/or consents will result in disqualification of entrant. These release and/or consent forms will be provided by the Producer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the submission of a videotape constitutes the submitter's permission to use the videotape (and the name, voice and likeness of the submitter) in and in connection with the program and all exploitations thereof, including, without limitation, advertising and promotion and, further, constitutes the submitter's representation that all necessary consents and permissions therefor have been obtained.