A woman’s bid to sue Facebook for $75 million over a variety of alleged misconduct – including copyright and trademark infringement, harassment and breach of privacy – has been mostly dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.
Jasbir Rai will have the opportunity to amend her case to focus more narrowly on the privacy allegations, according to the decision by Justice Carla L. Forth, which was issued last week and published online Tuesday.
“The plaintiff claims that she is a self-employed ‘spiritual influencer’ who runs multiple spiritual websites online,” Forth’s decision begins, before explaining that Rai conducts this work under the pseudonym “Bobby Dazzler.”
According to the court decision, Rai registered a trademark for that name, with a specific font, in April 2008. She also asserted that she has a copyright in the name Bobby Dazzler, though the defendants in the case – Meta Platforms Inc. and Facebook Canada Ltd. – disputed this.
Rai filed her lawsuit against the social media giant and its Canadian arm in September 2023, making a variety of claims related to the existence of more than 80 Facebook accounts and pages using the Bobby Dazzler name, as well as the company’s response to her efforts to get those pages and accounts taken down.
Forth’s decision dealt with an application by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit for failing to disclose a reasonable claim, something the judge had no trouble concluding was true.
“The notice of civil claim is confusing and the cause of action the plaintiff seeks is difficult to ascertain,” Forth’s decision reads.
“The plaintiff pleads legal conclusions, including that there has been an infringement of her Trademark, cyber-stalking and harassment, and breach of privacy, but fails to plead the material facts in support of such claims.”
Emails don’t breach trademark
The judge described Rai’s claims as “prolix” – a legal term meaning unnecessarily long and trivial – as well as “convoluted and lacking in material facts and law.”
Despite this, Forth decided to address some of the lawsuit’s claims in her decision, including the suggestion that Facebook sending emails to an address containing the name Bobby Dazzler amounted to a violation of trademark.
“In essence, the plaintiff is asserting that she owns the trademark to the name ‘Bobby Dazzler’ and that by emailing her at (her email address) this is in breach of her trademark,” the decision reads.
“She believes that her email address contains the trademark name. She further argues that by refusing to remove accounts using the name ‘Bobby Dazzler’ from Facebook, the defendants are infringing her trademark.”
The judge noted that the B.C. Supreme Court does not enforce the federal Trademarks Act, which requires all lawsuits regarding alleged violations of the act to be filed in Federal Court.
“Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no reasonable claim in breach of trademark against the defendants for sending correspondence to an email address that includes the name ‘bobbydazzler,'” the decision reads.
Copyright, harassment and defamation claims
In a similar vein, Rai’s lawsuit argued that Facebook’s correspondence with her and the Bobby Dazzler accounts and pages on its platform violated her copyright, though Forth’s decision notes the claim is unclear as to how, exactly, these alleged violations occurred. Nor did it specify the nature of any copyright Rai holds to the name.
“The use of the name in emails sent to her or the use of the name by other individuals of Facebook is clearly not a copyright infringement under the Copyright Act,” the decision reads.
“Further, I accept that the plaintiff has not copyrighted the name ‘Bobby Dazzler’ … It is clear that simply the name ‘Bobby Dazzler’ is not an original name, nor is it an original work in which copyright subsists.”
Forth was similarly dismissive of Rai’s assertion that the defendants had harassed her, noting that harassment is not a recognized tort in British Columbia, but that if it were, Rai’s contained insufficient material facts to support such a claim.
Rai also claimed defamation, arguing that the defendants had “caused the brand of the plaintiff to tarnish,” but without specifying the requisite specific defamatory statements, according to the decision.
“There is no particularization of the allegedly defamatory statements and no material facts are pleaded that would establish the requisite elements of the claim,” the decision reads. “The suggestion that using the name ‘Bobby Dazzler’ as part of an email address would consist of defamation has no basis in law.”
$75-million damages claim
In support of their application to have the lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, the defendants argued that it was “vexatious,” and pointed to Rai’s claim for damages as evidence of this.
“They assert that the claim for ‘aggravated and punitive damages of fifty million ($75,000,000),’ being two different values, are exaggerated and have no basis in the pleadings,” the decision reads.
“The plaintiff explains that there was a typo made in the pleadings and she is seeking damages of $75,000,000, which was brought to the attention of the defendants … The plaintiff asserts that her claims are neither scandalous nor frivolous, arguing that Meta Platforms Inc. has had many issues with breach of privacy in Canada and the United States.”
Forth agreed with the defendants that the $75-million damages claim – which the judge noted Rai “appears to have simply picked” without supporting evidence elsewhere in the lawsuit – supported a finding that the pleading was frivolous and vexatious.
The judge stopped short of dismissing the entire claim on that basis, however, noting that self-represented litigants such as Rai are entitled to “some indulgence” to allow them to bring their pleadings into compliance with court rules.
Privacy case can be revised
Forth dismissed the entirety of Rai’s claim as it was submitted, but opted to allow her to amend one part of it for future consideration.
“Ms. Rai’s claims that she has been receiving emails from the defendants, which suggest that a Facebook profile has been set up using her email address, despite her claim that she has never given permission for her contact information to be used for this purpose, is concerning and raises issues related to her privacy and personal information,” the decision reads.
“Furthermore, she asserts that she contacted the defendants on numerous occasions to have this matter resolved, with no response. In my view … the thrust of the plaintiff’s claim in this regard is rooted in negligence despite her not framing her pleadings as such.”
The judge gave Rai until 4 p.m. on Aug. 30 to file amended pleadings, but noted that those pleadings must focus only on her claims of breach of privacy and negligence.
“The claims relating to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, harassment and cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-attacking, and defamation are struck in their entirety,” the decision reads.
“In my view, it is plain and obvious that these claims must fail and that they are incapable of being cured by amendment. The flaws are not mere technicalities, but are substantive in nature and reflect a misapprehension of the law in these areas.”
Forth awarded court costs to the defendants in the case.
