UK: Who Owns Your Facebook Likes?

Last Updated: 22 October 2014
Article by Margaret Tofalides and Kimberley Smith

A case recently came before a district court in Florida about who owned the 'likes' of a Facebook page for a television programme. Margaret Tofalides and Kimberley Smith discuss the case and how such likes might be protected under English law.

The use of social media as a communication tool in business has increased exponentially over the past decade. These platforms are normally free of charge, but companies invest significant resources in their creation and upkeep. The platform, along with any associated "follower", "like" or other endorsement gained, is recognised to be valuable asset. But who owns these assets and how does this work in a global data environment? A recent US case sheds light on some of these issues, which will undoubtedly end up impacting other jurisdictions.

Mattocks v Black Entertainment Television

In August, the district court for the Southern District of Florida considered the question of who owned "likes" on Facebook.1

In 2008, Stacey Mattocks, a fan of a television show called The Game, created a Facebook fan page for the show. When The Game was cancelled in 2009, Mattocks continued to promote the show in the hope that a network would pick it back up. Mattocks' efforts were successful and after gaining over 750,000 "Likes", Black Entertainment Network ("BET") picked up the show.

Recognising the popularity of Mattocks' page, BET hired her to perform part-time work for the company and eventually, BET and Mattocks entered into a 'letter agreement' in which Mattocks agreed to grant BET administrative access to the page and, in return, BET agreed not to exclude Mattocks from it. A year later, following disputes as to Mattocks' exact terms of employment with BET, she demoted BET's administrative access to the page. In response, BET asked Facebook to "migrate fans" of Mattocks' page to their own official page and sent Mattocks a cease- and-desist letter. After a review of the page, Facebook granted BET's request.

Mattocks then brought an action against BET claiming that the network had (i) tortiously interfered with her contractual relationship with Facebook; (ii) breached the letter agreement; (iii) breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (iv) converted a business interest that she held in the Facebook page. Mattocks alleged that as a result of BET's actions, she lost potential income from other companies, including Google AdSense, which paid her for redirecting users. The court granted BET's motion for summary judgement, dismissing all four of Mattocks' claims. However, on 18 September, Mattocks filed a notice of appeal and so the case continues.

"The district court found that Mattocks failed at the first hurdle: to establish that she owned a property interest in the 'likes' on the Facebook page."


Under Florida law, "a conversion is an unauthorised act which deprives another of his property permanently or for an indefinite time."2 To establish the tort of conversion in English law, there must also be an intention to deny the owner's rights or to assert a right inconsistent with them.

Back in Florida, the district court found that Mattocks failed at the first hurdle: to establish that she owned a property interest in the "likes" on the Facebook page. This was due in large part to the fact that, at any time, a user is free to revoke the "like" by clicking the "unlike" button and so the district court surmised:

"If anyone can be deemed to own the "likes on a page, it is the individual users responsible for them... the "likes" cannot be converted in the same manner as goodwill or other intangible business interests".

In Kremen v Cohen,3 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed a three part test to decide whether registrants have property rights in their domain names. First, is the interest capable of precise definition? If so, is the interest capable of exclusive possession or control? If yes again, has the owner established a legitimate claim to exclusivity?

While the Florida district court did not mention the Kremen test in its judgement, if applied it seems apparent that the "likes" are doomed to fail. Even if the "likes" were capable of precise definition, Mattocks did not have exclusive possession or control of the "likes", nor could she have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity.

PhoneDog v Kravitz

It is not just Facebook testing the limits of intangible property. In PhoneDog v Kravitz4 a dispute arose from the continued use by Kravtiz, after his employment had terminated, of a Twitter account that PhoneDog alleged it owned and contained trade secrets.

In a motion to dismiss the claim, Kravitz questioned PhoneDog's proprietary interest in the account and his arguments echoed that of the district court's in Mattocks: he argued that "'(f)ollowers' are human beings who have the discretion to subscribe and/or unsubscribe to the account without the consent of PhoneDog". Twitter's terms of service also state that Twitter accounts belong to Twitter and not to Twitter users. PhoneDog countered that it has an ownership interest in the account based on "the licence granted to it by Twitter to use and access the account, in the account's list of followers, and in the content submitted to the account". PhoneDog also alleged that it had an "intangible property interest" in the Twitter account's list of followers, which it compared to a business customer list.

The court held that PhoneDog's property interest in the account could not be resolved at that stage, but found that PhoneDog had "adequately alleged that it owns or has the right to possess the account" and thus, rejected Kravitz's motion to dismiss the conversion claim. The claim was later dismissed by agreement with the parties and so the issue was never resolved, although Kravtiz did appear to retain sole use and control of the account.

How to protect your "likes" in the UK

Unlike the US where conversion can be used to protect intangible property, the majority in the UK case OBG Ltd v Allan5 held that there be no conversion of incorporeal assets. The decision in OBG has been criticised not least because the offence of theft, the closest criminal law analogue to the tort of conversion, was widened to include intangible property over 40 years ago.6

So the question remains, is there a cause of action that can adequately cover these business interests? One strong contender is unjust enrichment, which is based upon the notion that one party has been "enriched" at the other's expense. To be successful in a claim of unjust enrichment, a claimant must establish that (i) the defendant has been enriched or has received a benefit; (ii) that that enrichment is unjust; and (iii) that the enrichment was at the expense of the claimant.7

If the test is applied to a scenario such as Mattocks' in the UK, it is unclear whether the transfer of Facebook "likes" would fall into a category of case currently recognised as enrichment. However, the court in Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust8 acknowledged that "the law in this field has been developed incrementally" and emphasised that "the categories of unjust enrichment claims cannot be closed".

In the ordinary sense of the word, it is clear that BET gained a benefit from Mattocks's "likes" or they would not have asked Facebook to transfer them. Facebook "likes" can also be valued:, which calls itself the "#1 social media marketplace", has packages ranging from US$30 for 1,000 worldwide "likes" to US$500 for 10,000 "likes" from US accounts. The US State Department even spent US$630,000 to increase its Facebook "likes" in 2011 and 2012 according to an inspector general's report.

"For the sake of harmonisation, it is hoped that the legal framework will be updated to protect the valuable assets in social media."

If a court would agree that the transfer of Facebook "likes" amounted to enrichment, a claimant such as Mattocks may unfortunately fail to show that the enrichment was unjust. In Mattocks' claim for conversion, the district court held that she could not demonstrate that BET had acted wrongfully. BET had asked Facebook to transfer the "likes", Facebook had then reviewed the page in accordance with its own policies and determined that BET's request was valid and thus completed the transfer. However, if such a transfer had been made wrongfully then it is difficult to see where a claim for unjust enrichment would fail.

Next steps

The enormous value of social media is undeniable but, until such a case comes before a court in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, it is unclear whether the current law is adequate to give protection to the investment of time, money and other resources devoted to developing a social media platform.

The growth of social media has so far outpaced the development of the law, which has resulted in a mix bag framework, made up of legal regulation, industry standards and contractual agreements between consumer
and company. For the sake of harmonisation, it is hoped that the legal framework will be updated to protect the valuable assets in social media, but caution must be heeded when legal regulation is imposed on the volatile nature of online activities. The Court of Justice of the European Union's May ruling on the "right to be forgotten"9 is an example of this, with Google struggling to understand how exactly to implement the EU Data Protection Directive.10

While, in the UK at least, unjust enrichment may provide protection for assets in social media, until such time as the law develops sufficiently to safeguard these assets, ownership rights should be set out clearly in contractual provisions in order to protect these business interests.


1. Stacey Mattocks v Black Entertainment Television LLC, 13-61582-CIV-COHN/SELTZER.
2. Fogade v ENB Revocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274 1291 (11th Cir 2001)
3. Kremen v Cohen, 01-15899, DC No. CV-98- 20718-JW (9th Cir July 25, 2003.
4. C 11-03474 MEJ (district court, ND California). 5. [2007] UKHL 21.
6. Theft Act 1968, s.4(1).
7. Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea)
Limited [1999] 1 AC 221 at 234C.
8. [2010] EWCA Civ 678.
9. Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola
de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez
10. Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Margaret Tofalides
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions