Facebook Suspension Due to Changing Phone Number

[ajmcello78]

I've had my FB account pretty much since they incorporated and started a Social Media platform. I've been using the same phone, computer, and same location/IP addresses for years. I went to update my phone number under my profile settings to my new cell number, it was old and hadn't changed in years. Bam. Security violation, account locked "FOR MY PROTECTION". It's been several days. I was using my phone which I always do for Facebook, and the only requirements to have it restored were to upload a picture of myself so they could verify.

It's been days, I'm locked out, and I don't have access to anything, my contacts, messages, nothing. While I understand it was done to protect me, there is no other way to have this resolved quickly that I am aware of. No phone number, no email, I can't even log in to send a complaint.

This seems like some sort of violation. Facebook is a business, it is incorporated in Menlo Park, CA and they are now costing me time, money, and resources. **** them. I'm sure I signed all my rights away, but is there anything else I can do? Do I even have a legal recourse? I know this happens to a lot of people, that, and their security scraping collection for every Facebook user has pretty much been violation of privacy rights which caused people to leave in droves.

Anyway, just curious, I'm probably F'd no matter what until they get around to fixing it.

[bcr229]

I don't think you have any recourse, you just have to work through their process, no matter how cumbersome.

I do want to thank you for giving me yet another reason NOT to associate my phone # with my Facebook account.

[jk]

Facebook? What’s that?


thats a joke but truly I don’t use it. I created an account a long time ago and almost never go there. My wife bugged me for 6 months asking me when I was going to accept her friend request. I kept telling her: the next time I go to my Facebook page. I relented to her demands after 6 months of her asking. Been there once or twice in the several years since then.


I suggest you read their terms of use. They aren’t liable for your losses. In fact, there is no reason they can’t just delete your account whenever they feel like it (short of the eeoc protected classes).

A person that doesn’t retain backups of any critical info that isn’t tattooed on their body has no place to complain about losing data. Heck, Facebook could get hacked or lose all of their data at any time and cause you to lose the data you’re concerned about and guess what: they would have no liability. They have no contractual relationship with you that would obligate them to be responsible for your data or continued access to your account ergo you’re simply going to have to work through their process and hope for the best. It is a free service after all. As the idiom says: you get what you pay for.

[adjusterjack]

Anyway, just curious, I'm probably F'd no matter what until they get around to fixing it.

Try starting another account under another name with minimal information. Probably a facebook no no but if it works, who cares.

[Taxing Matters]

In fact, there is no reason they can’t just delete your account whenever they feel like it (short of the eeoc protected classes).

As a point of clarification, the EEOC has nothing to do with Facebook's relationship with users. The EEOC only enforces the federal laws relating to illegal discrimination against employees by their employers. Federal law does prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating against their customers based on race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. The laws the EEOC enforces covers a several additional characteristics that apply in employment but that do not apply to places of public accommodation. So while I know what you were getting at, it is not quite correct to refer to "eeoc protected classes" in this context.

And, moreover, it is still not clear to what extent websites and online services are subject to the federal law regarding places of public accommodation. This is still an emerging area of the law and one on which the courts don't agree. Ultimately it may end up having to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[jk]

As a point of clarification, the EEOC has nothing to do with Facebook's relationship with users. The EEOC only enforces the federal laws relating to illegal discrimination against employees by their employers. Federal law does prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating against their customers based on race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. The laws the EEOC enforces covers a several additional characteristics that apply in employment but that do not apply to places of public accommodation. So while I know what you were getting at, it is not quite correct to refer to "eeoc protected classes" in this context.

And, moreover, it is still not clear to what extent websites and online services are subject to the federal law regarding places of public accommodation. This is still an emerging area of the law and one on which the courts don't agree. Ultimately it may end up having to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes. It’s the civil rights act of 1964 and it is limited to race, religion, national origin, or color. I knew that when I wrote it and probably should have simply said “short of a reason protected by law”.

In california the unruh civil rights act could attempt to be invoked with a list of protected classes that is greater than even that of the eeoc.

While an online business does not fit within the definition of a covered entity of either law, I suspect somebody will either find a way to make it fit or amend the existing law or create new law to address the issue. Given the intent of both laws are simply to prohibit discrimination in a non employer employee situation (a simplistic definition) I doubt it will remain limited to physical businesses. It doesn’t make sense that it would.

[Taxing Matters]

While an online business does not fit within the definition of a covered entity of either law, I suspect somebody will either find a way to make it fit or amend the existing law or create new law to address the issue. Given the intent of both laws are simply to prohibit discrimination in a non employer employee situation (a simplistic definition) I doubt it will remain limited to physical businesses. It doesn’t make sense that it would.

Clearly in 1964, before the internet, Congress didn't have any reason to consider the virtual world. The ADA was passed in 1990. While the internet existed, it had not yet broken out to be a major part of people's lives. AOL, which was the first entry into the internet for many people, first started its internet push in 1991. Now it is time that Congress addresses the Civil Rights Act and ADA in modern tech environment. There are a number of issues to work out regarding how to apply the laws to the online world, especially the ADA. The courts cannot come up with the right rules for that; they just interpret the law as it is now. Congress has to step in and flesh out the details of how things should work for the internet. The problem is that Congress is so divided right now that it barely can do more than pass funding bills to keep the government going, and it has trouble doing even that. So I don't see Congress getting around to this anytime soon.