“Dislike” – Service of Process Via Facebook Messenger

judge

By Christian Kaiser

Suppose you are sitting across from a hot date at a trendy restaurant downtown. Like all of the dates you get from Tinder, this date starts off great. It is intellectually stimulating. You talk about your interests. You might also talk about the Seahawks, or why Nelson Cruz is going to hit 40 homeruns this year, etc. Then you slip in that you are a lawyer, to which your date replies, “Tell me something ‘lawyerly.’” Since you are a Securities lawyer for a big Seattle law firm, you blurt out the first thing that pops into your head: “Have you heard about the rule against perpetuities?” As you begin to explain this fascinating legal issue, your date’s eyes predictably glaze over, and she starts to check her iPhone. You do the same and check your Facebook. You have a new message, which reads: “You have been served.” The message specifies a date and time when you must appear in court. The words “general partnerships are fine” and “you guys won’t ever fight” begin echoing through your head as you remember those East Coast clients from a few years back. You look up at your date and tell her you have to leave. As you exit the restaurant, you call your friend in your firm’s litigation department and ask whether Facebook Messenger meets the constitutional standards of due process for service of process. To your surprise, he answers “yes.”

This March, in FTC v. PCCare247, Inc., the Southern District of New York ruled that serving notice over Facebook was constitutionally adequate for service of process on international defendants. (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3243-x120057/pccare247-inc-et-al). In this case, the defendants were located in India, and more traditional means of service had failed. Under FRCP 4(f)(3), a judge can order means of process, so long as it is “(1) not prohibited by international agreement; and (2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.” International conventions do not prohibit service of process via Facebook and, as the S.D.N.Y. stated, the circumstances in which the Facebook accounts would be served ensured service was constitutionally proper. In PCCare247, Inc., service was sent in two ways: via email and through Facebook Messenger. The court found that the defendants’ Facebook accounts were legitimate because they listed the defendant company as the defendants’ current employer, and a number of the defendants were friends with each other on Facebook. This, along with the similarities between Facebook Messenger and email, convinced the court that the standards of due process were met.  Continue reading

Death by Drones: Is a U.S. Citizen Entitled to Due Process?

ImageBy Nicholas Ulrich

Last Friday, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case brought by Nasser Al-Aulaqi over the drone killings of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, and grandson Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Unmanned U.S. drone strikes in Yemen killed Anwar and Abdulrahman, both of whom were United States citizens. The Obama Administration specifically targeted Anwar after deeming him a terrorist and placing him on a “kill list.” Though suspected of facilitating the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009, Anwar was never charged, tried, or convicted of any crimes. Despite this, a U.S. drone killed him on September 30, 2011 while he was driving a car in Yemen.

Two weeks later, an unmanned drone strike killed Anwar’s teenage son, Abdulrahman, while he was sitting in an open-air café in southern Yemen. Abdulrahman and the six others killed with him were not specifically targeted nor officially deemed terrorists by the Obama Administration. Rather, they were mere bystanders in a strike intended for Ibraham Al-Banna, an Egyptian national. Incidentally, Al-Banna was not killed in the strike.

Continue reading