The lawsuit's complaint is somewhat understandable. If you've so much as heard the word "Instagram" you've heard about how much their new terms of service stink. In it,that it "may share User Content and your information (including but not limited to, information from cookies, log files, device identifiers, location data, and usage data)" with Facebook, its subsidiaries and its "affiliates." Instagram users understood this to mean that Instagram could sell their photos to advertisers, though Systrom pushed back at that in his blog post when he more or less said that the company . "We don't own your photos you do," he said.
Instagram kept three key new details in place, though. One, the company maintained the ability to serve ads in your feed. Two, it said "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." Lastly, it left in place the mandatory arbitration clause that it added with the new terms of service, forcing users to waive their right to participate in class action lawsuit. That obviously didn't discourage this group of plaintiffs who said in the lawsuit that "Instagram declares that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us.'"
No big deal. Instagram is a part of Facebook now, and Facebook has dealt with class action lawsuits before. Just seven months ago, it got slammed with a $15 billion class action suit from users who "improperly tracking theinternetuse of its members even after they logged out of their accounts." They haven't settled yet, but if it winds up anything like the class action lawsuit over the Beacon advertising program , it could take years to resolve and could cost Facebook millions. With some good lawyering, though, this latest lawsuit won't cost as many millions as it could. But Instagram .