The alleged "suicide note."

All those calming platitudes from Kevin Systrom haven't silenced the blowback over recent changes to Instagram's terms of service. Reuters broke the news that a class action lawsuit was filed against Instagram this past Friday in San Francisco federal court.

The complaint (below) was filed on behalf of a California Instagram user named Lucy Funes "and all others similarly situated." It accuses Instagram of a breach of contract for violating the convenant of good faith and fair dealing, among other allegations, and demands a jury trial.

Reuters says it "appears to be the first civil lawsuit," in response to changes to Instagram's TOS, implying it might not be the last.

According to the complaint:

If customers do not agree with Defendant's scheme, they can cancel their profile with Instagram. However, upon canceling, customers forfeit all right to retrieve the Property that was previously entrusted to Instagram, which retains right thereto in perpetuity. In short, Instagram declares that "possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us."

The complaint also takes issue with Instragram's newly announced mandatory arbitration clause, which forces users "to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances," notes Reuters. The current terms of service, which are in effect until January 19, 2013, do not stipulate that kind of liability shield.

In an email to Reuters, Facebook, which purchased Instagram for $715 million in April, said: "We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously."

Reuters also spoke to Kurt Opsahl, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He applauded Mr. Systrom's decision to change proposed advertising terms based on criticism from users, but harped on potential privacy pitfalls in the new TOS:

However, he said the new terms no longer contain language which had explicitly promised that private photos would remain private. Facebook had engendered criticism in the past, Opsahl said, for changing settings so that the ability to keep some information private was no longer available.

Based on the uptick of dog, Christmas cookie and FOMO-inducing vacation photos in our Insta feed, we'd say users seem less perturbed.

Class action lawsuit against Instagram for TOS changes

Zuck. (Photo: scrapetv.com)

Bad news for anyone paranoid about what Facebook might do with his data: VentureBeat reports that as of January 16, Instagram and Facebook will begin sharing information. Resistance is futile; your data will be assimilated. "We’ve learned that by being able to share insights and information with each other, we can build better experiences for our users," writes the company in an update of its privacy policy and terms of service.

Guess what that means! All the data points you're generating with your use of Instagram are now available for Facebook to use in whatever it's up to these days. 

Perhaps with Facebook's long history of privacy-related stumbles in mind, Instagram is treading very carefully. For example:

We want to make sure you understand that you still have control over who sees your photos. You still get to choose who can see your Instagram photos, and you still get to choose whether you post your photos on Facebook.

Implied: "So don't flip shit on us, okay?" You're not going to end up with a unified profile or some such. And in a blog post announcing the move, Instagram also added:

"Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow."

However, the update does also explicitly state that information gathered might be used to "provide personalized content and information to you and others, which could include online ads or other forms of marketing." And, remember, both services have access to the data.

We can't wait for the day when an Instagram snapshot of an espresso is followed by Facebook ads for espresso makers.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at their terms of service, shall we? Or, as photographer Clayton Cubitt is calling it, Instagram's "suicide note":

Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.

Emphasis ours. Insert obligatory reference to the fact that if you're not the paying customer, you're the product [here].

The Borg shows no mercy.

Should've read the terms of service.

The cost of Google's purchase of Frommer's is said to be $23 million. At that price, how could they not buy it? [New York Times]

At last, a service that flags troublesome clauses lurking deep within those terms of service agreements you don't read. No longer need you fear becoming part of a human CentiPad. [TechCrunch]

The latest addition to Facebook's timeline: "Expecting a Baby." The Unbaby.me folks are going to love this. [Facebook]

The Pentagon is testing "hypersonic" flight technology that makes the Concorde (R.I.P.) look lame. Try New York to London in an hour. You can't even get to Bay Ridge that fast. [CNN]

In the future, we will all telecommute via iPads on wheels with giraffe-like necks. [The Verge]

A screenshot from Tumblr's Terms of Service. (beccamp.tumblr.com)

It's a well-known fact that even though we click "Agree" to tons of online "Terms of Service" agreements, we rarely ever read them. But Tumblr user beccap decided to give Tumblr's new terms a read, and found some delightfully funny one-liners embedded within the legal muck.

The "Community Guidelines" portion of Tumblr's Terms of Service reads, "Please don't use Tumblr's Upload Video Feature to host sexually explicit videos. We're not in the business of profiting from adult-oriented videos and hosting this stuff is fucking expensive." Fair enough. The helpful Tumblrites even go far enough as to provide a servicey little link to where you can host that stuff. "You can use services like XHamster to host those instead," it continues.

Other gems include:

• "Don't post private photos of your ex's junk (no matter how attractive)."
• "If you're younger than 13, don't use Tumblr. Ask your parents for an Xbox or try books."
• "If you want to ridicule or parody a public figure (and who doesn't?) don't try to trick readers into think you are actually that public figure."

Check out some more screenshots by beccap below.

UPDATE:

The original poster of the screenshots was beccap, not bsinthecity as previously written. We've fixed the above article and links to reflect this change.