On Monday, the judge in the Mozilla case ruled in favor of Facebook, declaring the company liable for a number of claims against the social media giant.
This decision is a win for Facebook and a setback for the EFF, who had argued that the company had acted improperly by using cookies in its platform to track users.
The court ruling is the latest in a string of decisions against the technology giant over the past year.
The EFF had been suing Facebook for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and in March it filed a lawsuit on behalf of a California woman who said she had been tracked by Facebook without her knowledge and had no right to privacy.
Facebook had initially asked the court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that it had no legal standing to do so.
But on Monday, Judge Richard Posner of the Northern District of California ruled that this was not the case, and declared that the law at issue was “not a part of our country’s constitution.”
This means that the EFF’s case could be heard in federal court in California, which would effectively mean that the lawsuit against Facebook could proceed in the state.
In addition to Facebook’s ruling, the EFF has also asked the judge to dismiss a separate lawsuit by a former employee of Facebook called Privacy Badger, who said that the social network had sent her unsolicited ads and other content that he found objectionable.
This lawsuit also faces a similar issue: Posner ruled that the ads were not sent by Facebook, but by an unnamed third party.
Posner wrote that while this is “not our intention to suggest that all third parties are equally liable, neither are they immune from liability,” and that “this decision does not change the general lawfulness of the third party advertising practices that Facebook engaged in.”
While the EFF is not a party to this lawsuit, it has filed a separate suit on behalf and against Facebook on behalf on behalf.
The judge ruled that Privacy Badgers actions were not an attempt to get money from Facebook, and that PrivacyBadger was not a company that should be allowed to be a party.
The case is expected to go to trial sometime next year.