Strachan v. Facebook CA1/1

Filed 12/12/23 Strachan v. Facebook CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

NEIL G. STRACHAN, A165910 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. FACEBOOK, INC., et al., No. 20CIV03457)

Defendants and Respondents.

Neil G. Strachan sued Facebook, Inc. (Facebook or the company) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (breach of the implied covenant) after Facebook cancelled his advertising account and removed his advertising content from the platform. The trial court sustained the company’s demurrer to Strachan’s second amended complaint (complaint) without leave to amend and dismissed the matter with prejudice.1

1 Facebook is now known as Meta Platforms, Inc. We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the dispositive issues, omitting references to causes of action that are not at issue. We disregard factual representations in Strachan’s briefs that are not supported by record citations. Our factual summary is drawn from the complaint. (See Liapes v. Facebook, Inc. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 910, 916, fn. 2.)

1

Representing himself, Strachan appeals. He argues the complaint states claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2014, Strachan created a personal Facebook page. He also opened an advertising account with the company and created several “business” pages—including those entitled “Rank Your Women” and “Man With Woman”—where he advertised products and services. Strachan agreed to the company’s Terms of Use, Advertising Policies, and Platform Terms (collectively, agreement). Section 4(2) of the relevant version of Facebook’s Terms of Use provided that the company may “suspend or permanently disable access” to a user’s account if it determined the user “clearly, seriously or repeatedly breached” the company’s terms, policies, or community standards, or where the company was “required to do so for legal reasons.” Another provision of the Terms of Use authorized the company to “remove or restrict access” to a user’s “content, services or information” if the company determined that doing so was “reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal . . . impacts” to the company. Section 12(2) of the relevant version of Facebook’s Advertising Policies held advertisers “responsible for understanding and complying with all applicable laws and regulations.” It warned advertisers that “[f]ailure to comply may result in a variety of consequences, including the cancellation of ads[.]” Section 4(7) forbade ads promoting “the sale or use of adult products or services.” Section 7(e) of the relevant version of the Platform Terms authorized the company to “take enforcement action against” the user if the company believed—in its “sole discretion”—that the user violated the Terms