December 27, 2012
The lawsuit claims the proposed changes would “transfer valuable property rights to Instagram while simultaneously relieving Instagram from any liability for commercially exploiting customers’ photographs and artistic content, while shielding Instagram from legal liability.”
The complaint, filed by San Diego resident Lucy Funes in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, says Instagram is making a “grab for customer property rights,” while preventing its users from “obtaining injunctive or equitable relief.” The planned terms would also “artificially limit the statute of limitations for all claims against Instagram to one year,” the suit reads.
The lawsuit indicates Funes “is acting to preserve valuable and important property, statutory, and legal rights” before legal claims are “forever barred by adoption of Instagram’s new terms.”
The lawsuit says users who opted to cancel would forfeit the right to their photos. “In short, Instagram declares ‘possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don’t like it, you can’t stop us. ‘” the lawsuit reads.
Reuters reported Facebook, which owns Instagram, has said the lawsuit is “without merit” and the social network would “fight it vigorously.”
“The concerns we heard about from you the most focused on advertising, and what our changes might mean for you and your photos,” Systrom wrote in a blog post. “There was confusion and real concern about what our possible advertising products could look like and how they would work. “Because of the feedback we have heard from you, we are reverting this advertising section to the original version that has been in effect since we launched the service in October 2010. You can see the updated terms here.”
“Going forward, rather than obtain permission from you to introduce possible advertising products we have not yet developed, we are going to take the time to complete our plans, and then come back to our users and explain how we would like for our advertising business to work,” he wrote.