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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.