直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Court Says Facebook “Likes” Not a Form of IP Right

September 04, 2014

Authored and Edited by Naresh Kilaru

In a case that underscores the transitory nature of social media assets, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently ruled that Facebook “likes” cannot be stolen because they are not a form of intellectual property. The case is Mattocks v. Black Entertainment Television LLC, No. 13-61582 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2014).

In 2008, the plaintiff Stacey Mattocks created a Facebook fan page for “The Game,” a television series that aired on the CW Network from 2006 to 2009 and was later acquired by BET. In 2010, BET hired Mattocks as a part-time worker to manage the fan page she had created. While working for BET, Mattocks posted most of the material on the page, but BET also supplied her with exclusive content for the page and also prominently displayed its trademarks and logos in the top header of the page. While Mattocks worked for BET, the number of “likes” on the fan page grew from around two million to over six million.

BET and Mattocks later entered into a short letter agreement in which Mattocks granted BET administrative access to the fan page and allowed BET to update the content on the page “as determined by BET in its sole discretion.” Mattocks admitted that the agreement gave BET full access to the fan page.

After signing the letter agreement, Mattocks and BET discussed the possibility of BET employing Mattocks full time. To gain leverage in those discussions, Mattocks informed BET that she would be demoting BET’s administrative access to the fan page so BET would have to go through her to post and update content. Following its loss of full access to the fan page, BET created an official series page for “The Game” and asked Facebook to migrate fans to the official page. BET also sent Mattocks a letter terminating their agreement and asked Mattocks to stop using any BET material on the fan page.

Facebook granted BET’s request to migrate fans to the official page and shut down Mattocks’ fan page. Mattocks sued, claiming among other things that BET had converted a business interest she owned in the fan page. The court rejected this claim, holding that Facebook “likes” cannot constitute a property interest because users are free to revoke them at any time. As such, they “cannot be converted in the same manner as goodwill or other intangible business interests.”

Tags

BET v. Mattocks, Facebook

Contacts

Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP