Zuriel Tronco

Dr. Probst, English 1101

Essay 4
Lawsuit

Farmers unite is a dating website created for lonely farmers looking for companionship.
When creating an account, Farmers Unite asks for personal information regarding; Religious
beliefs, political views, personal values, net worth and annual income. Before any charges are
applied by Farmers Unite, the user is required to accept the terms of agreement. In the terms of
agreements, it specifies that a third party MAY have access to personal information. Joe was a
typical lonely individual looking for a partner when he created an account. Joe altered his
earnings and a few other physical attributes with the intent of being match with more women.
Joe later found out that another website took his profile picture from the Farmers Unite site for
the use of their website when a women he met called him fake. Months later the IRS also
accused Joe of fraud, claiming that he earned less than what he said he earned on the website.
Due to Farmers Unites false advertisement, misleading information, and lack of specification. If
Joe were to sue farmers united for letting his information out to both a union company and the
government, he will win the case.
First and foremost, the company Farmers Unite promoted false advertisement. The
company goes off by the slogan in the privacy of your own home and on YOUR schedule. This
quote can lead many to believe that the site creates a confidential bond between the user
and the site. That was not the case for Joe -and probably many others- because in the terms of
agreements it stated that a third party was able to take whatever information or pictures that they
wanted from the site for the use of their own purposes. A picture of Joes Farmers unite was
taken by the janitors union website. This left Joe confused questioning how his picture got there.

The question became; did Farmers unite have the ability to share his picture? Technically
Farmers Unite did have the ability to let the janitors website take the photo. Because Joe was led
to believe otherwise because of the advertisement from Farmers Unite, he believes that the
actions were a violation of his privacy. In this argument the finger is pointed towards the CEO of
Farmers Unite Joanie Fleur. Mrs. Fleur violated the trademark laws that are set for a business so
it loses its credibility and reliability in court. Joe is able to sue Farmers Unite under the Lanham
Act.
Members of the jury may counter argue the position if Joe decides to sue the
company claiming that he was too hasty and should have taken the time to read the terms of
agreement. This may or may not be seen as a just statement however it can be seen as a bias
counterargument that falls in the same category of; dont share it if you do not want others to
see it. Was it a hasty action by Joe or did farmers unites manipulate Joe and many other users
through the slogan. This is a problem that people of the current generations are facing. According
to Nicholas Carr, a writer who has written Is google making us stupid says They found that
people using the sites exhibited a form of skimming activity, They typically read no more
than one or two pages of an article or book before they would bounce out to another site.
(Paragraph 7) This statement declares that by having the ability to read a summary instead of a
full document, humans are more likely to read the summary. Joe fell victim to
the manipulation of Farmers Unite in its unique tactic of using the slogan to overshadow the
terms of agreement.
Another problem caused by the company is that in the terms of agreement it did not
specify that the information given by Joe had and needed to be true. In this argument Joe is
backed up by the first amendment of the constitute which, in-other words its states the freedom

of speech. Joe had the right to put whatever information that made him feel comfortable as he
had the right to do so. This can also be backed up by the part of the farmers unite slogan that
says We want YOU to feel comfortable finding someone like you. That slogan gives credibility
to the user letting him or her write whatever makes them comfortable so that the matches that
they find are what they are expecting. Joe stated that he earned more money than he actually
made, he had the right to do so because the farmers unite website open its doors to letting him
say it. A counter argument by the audience can be made by stating well he sold his privacy
rights to the farmers unite. In reality Joe did not actually sell his rights to the company. The
terms of service stated that a third party may have accessibility to his information. First, the
website doesnt state that a third party WILL have accessibility to the information. Second, it
does not blankly state that farmers unite will have total control of Joes rights to privacy. This is a
common thing that a website does, but mostly a social networking site like Facebook. In
Facebook, an individual has the ability to post their relationship status, profession, hobbies and
the type of music that they enjoy. All of this information that is put by Facebook user for other
users is easily accessible to anyone. Joe did not sell his rights nor give his rights to the company
when he created the account. Farmers Unite only let him know that his information would be
shared with a third party, not that his information would be let stolen by a third party.
In regards of the government stepping into the conflict, the government would be fooled
by Farmers Unite. Daniel J. Solove, a law major and privacy researcher writes, Thousands
of government bodies at the federal and state label have records of personal information,
employment, property ownership and more. (Paragraph 10) This statement provides the idea
that at the end of the day the government knows everything therefore if the government decided
to believe Farmers Unite and accuse Joe of fraud, they would be fooled with false information.

Joe is also protected by the Fifth Amendment; making it harder for the government to accuse
Joe of fraud without doing a full background check on him. If the government wanted to go into
trial with joe about a potential black market economy that joe is running, the government would
have to be use more reliable information than a simple just a simple post. Using information
from a site that states We want YOU to feel comfortable finding someone like you in the
privacy of your own home and on YOUR schedule! isnt a reliable source by the fact that it
lets the user write whatever they want in their bio. The government would be blamed for thinking
that; everything on the internet must be true.
In conclusion, Joe has the ability to sue Farmers Unite through their structural flaws and
ignorance that he saw in regards to their lack of specification. Joe has strong evidence and
facts that fall in favor of him that make him look like the victim in this situation. Not only did the
government get involved, his reputation was tarnished by the website. This can eventually lead to
problems between the government and the site. If joe were to sue Farmers Unites, he would win
his case.