TechCrunch and others recently reported on a multi-count, multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed against Facebook in California (Scribd link to the lawsuit here).  TechCrunch thinks it's pretty flimsy.  I'm not sure what to think.

Quick comments:

1. The complaint almost reads like a laundry list of facts about Facebook.  For example, the complaint mentions that Facebook bought FriendFeed.  So?
2. It doesn't seem like plaintiffs are complaining about any one thing.  There's no real smoking gun that's driving this lawsuit.  At least, it doesn't seem like it after reading the complaint.  It's also odd that they are complaining about Beacon when there's already a beacon lawsuit going on (actually there are several). 
3. There's a claim about Facebook datamining, but it seems to be factually based on an advertisement or advertisements by Facebook calling for applicants to a data analyst position (?).
4. What about the California Online Privacy Protection Act?  This statute (summary here) is not really that strong of a club, in my opinion, and only requires certain entities to post a privacy policy describing policies regarding data collection and use...30 days after being notified of non-compliance.  (There are other aspects to this law, but the fact that there are no notable cases brought by plaintiffs under this statute several years after its enactment is telling.)
5. The most colorable claims seem like the publicity and personality driven claims - which allege that Facebook exploited the personality and publicity rights of users without permission.  Resolution of this claim will involve digging into (the various versions of) Facebook's terms, the enforceability of click and browsewrap agreements, whether the terms were unconscionable (etc.).  This process will not be fun for Facebook, and I'm hoping they've done a good job of keeping track of which set of users agreed to which version of the terms.  Also, there was a furor over people unwittingly appearing in Facebook ads, including a woman whose husband was served with a singles ad featuring the woman, but the complaint didn't seem to highlight this much.
6. The complaint doesn't seek class action status.

The most notable thing about the lawsuit is, the identity of counsel for plaintiffs: Mark Lanier (or the Lanier Firm).  He's a pretty famous trial lawyer/plaintiff's lawyer who has lately been taking on drug companies and routinely obtaining 7 (or 8) figure jury verdicts.  Kamber Edelson is the go-to firm for these types of lawsuits, and Lanier jumping into the fray is interesting.  The South East Texas Record picks up on this angle here:

In 2005, Lanier won a $253 million jury award against Merck & Co.Inc. for the widow of a man who died after taking the company's drugVioxx. The verdict was later reversed on appeal.

Lanier alsowon a verdict of more than $115 million in an asbestos case. He alsowon a $480 million dollars in a business fraud case.

This confirms my mildly informed bystander observations that Lanier gets results...big ones.  Lawyers of this ilk typically have "strategies" around litigation.  They don't litigate individual cases as such...they take a long-term view of litigation.  And more than anything, this should worry Facebook.