Jump to content

Robinson v Meta Platforms Inc

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Nicholas Robinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc.[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California[1]
Docket 26-cv-01616-CRB[1]
Filed Not identified in the sources reviewed.
Judge(s) Charles R. Breyer[1]
Plaintiffs Nicholas Robinson[1]
Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.[1]
Case type Proposed privacy class action involving voiceprints[1]
Claims / issues California Penal Code § 502(c)(2); knowledge and permission for data use[1]
Status Complaint dismissed without leave to amend September 15, 2026 (ECF 36).[1]

Robinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc. concerns alleged unauthorized use of Facebook and Messenger users’ voiceprints for identification and targeted content. On September 15, 2026, Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed Nicholas Robinson’s complaint without leave to amend.[1]

Allegations and claim

Robinson alleged that he permitted microphone access for communications but did not authorize the voiceprint uses described in his complaint. The proposed class action asserted a single claim under California Penal Code section 502(c)(2), part of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The action began in state court and Meta removed it to federal court.[1]

September 15, 2026 dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not adequately establish that Meta knowingly used data without permission. It relied on Robinson’s agreement to the terms of service and incorporated privacy disclosures, including disclosures about using voice recordings for identification and product personalization. The court rejected his objections that disclosures were spread across documents, did not use the word voiceprint, and exceeded his intended communications-only consent.[1]

The court did not decide Meta’s other arguments about California Consumer Privacy Act displacement, whether voiceprints had actually been used, or compensable damage or loss. Counsel conceded that the consent conclusion left no basis for amendment, and the court dismissed without leave to amend. The ruling concerns the pleaded statutory claim and disclosures, rather than a general approval of all biometric data practices.[1]

References