Facebook Motion to Reliance on Class Action 7641-12-18 Ophir v. Jewel Labs and Products Israel in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (February 15, 2021). There the respondents' arguments regarding the lack of cause and lack of conformity to Item 1 of the Second Addendum to the Class Actions Law were accepted, but this is a decision on a motion to certify a class action, unlike in our case. An additional difference arises from the facts detailed in paragraphs 81-83 of the judgment: it appears that there was no proof of a connection between the purchase of the cigarettes and exposure to the advertisement in question. Applying the law to our case can lead to a different answer, certainly taking into account that Item 1 relates to the dealer-client relationship, whether or not they entered into a transaction. It is not superfluous to quote the Facebook president on this matter:
"However, we may take the opportunity to show a general ad that is unrelated to the attributes of the person or an ad encouraging the non-user to sign up for Facebook."
(Appendix 6 to the motion for approval, at p. 14, at the end of the third paragraph).
- The question of whether or not the Applicant's claims regarding the damages are sufficient is also not a matter of dismissal in limine.
In light of all of the above, I reject Facebook's request to dismiss the approval request out of hand, in the absence of an opinion supporting it." (Emphasis added - A.R.B.).
Thus, the operative decision is that the application for approval should not be rejected out of hand. Regarding the issue of the absence of a personal lawsuit, it was noted in the decision that the claim requires a factual clarification that is not suitable for preliminary clarification, and with reference to the respondent's attempt to rely on a class action (center) 7641-12-18 Ophir v. Jewel Labs (published in the databases, [Nevo], February 15, 2021) (hereinafter: "the Jewel Labs case"), it was noted that there the respondent's arguments for lack of cause and lack of compatibility with item 1 were accepted , but in that matter it was a decision in a motion for approval. In addition, it was written that "the application of the law in our case can lead to a different answer."