Background
The plaintiff, Nikko D’Ambrosio, sued Meta Platforms, the administrators of a Facebook group called Are We Dating the Same Guy, and a woman he briefly dated, Abbigail Rajala, among others. The suit arose from posts in the Facebook group where Rajala and other users shared photos of D’Ambrosio and discussed his behavior after a breakup. D’Ambrosio alleged violations of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Civil Liability for Doxing Act, defamation, false light, and negligence. The district court granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and D’Ambrosio appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims. Regarding the Right of Publicity Act, the court held that Meta and other defendants did not use D’Ambrosio’s likeness for a commercial purpose merely by displaying unrelated advertisements alongside his posts. For the Doxing Act claim, the court found the complaint failed to allege that defendants intended to cause death, bodily injury, or stalking, or that they knew such harm was reasonably likely. On defamation, the court applied the innocent construction rule, finding the posts could reasonably be interpreted as referring to a different individual named Anthony LaMonica. The court also noted that D’Ambrosio waived negligence claims by failing to address the district court’s waiver ruling in his brief. Finally, the court criticized the plaintiff’s brief for containing fictitious quotations and citations, noting the attorney’s firm uses artificial intelligence, and ordered a show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Submission of a brief with numerous fictitious citations and quotations is a serious dereliction of counsel’s duty to serve as an officer of the court.
Nikko D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., No. 25-2231 (7th Cir. May 15, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that social media platforms and users are not liable under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act for displaying ads alongside user content, and it sets a high bar for proving intent to cause physical harm or stalking in doxing cases. It also signals strict judicial scrutiny of appellate briefs containing fabricated legal authority.