"... The legislature limited the causes of action for which a class action can be conducted only to those included in the Second Addendum or an explicit provision of the law, so that a closed list of causes of action for which a class action can be conducted was created (see: Civil Appeal Authority 2598/08 Bank Yahav for Civil Employees in Tax Appeal v. Shapira et al., [published in Nevo], paragraphs 20-22 (November 23, 2010)). In doing so, the legislature delineated the situations in which it is possible to make use of the procedural instrument of the class action, after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of this procedural framework. This Court noted this, stating:
As a rule, in determining procedural frameworks in the Law for the various proceedings, as well as in the Class Actions Law, the legislature defines the boundaries of the arrangement. This is what the subordinate legislature did when it designed the institution of the claim in the summary procedure; This is what he did in the case of fast-track claims; And this is what the Knesset did in the Class Actions Law. The limits set by the legislature on the possibility of filing a class action are an integral part of the entire legislative arrangement. Therefore, the person seeking to change the boundaries is in fact seeking to change the balance that the legislature has set for the procedural framework of the institution of class actions (High Court of Justice 2171/06 Cohen v. Speaker of the Knesset, para. 37 (Nevo, August 29, 2011))" (ibid., in paragraph 7, emphasis added - A.R.B.).
This means that the management of a claim for invasion of privacy is possible only when it is carried out, according to the claim, within the framework of one of the relationships to which one of the details of the addendum relates, in this case Item 1. In our case, the argument is that the request for approval falls within the scope of Item 1 because following actions that Facebook allegedly carried out in violation of privacy, it displayed an ad or an invitation to join Facebook. I am of the opinion that claims regarding the violation of privacy in this situation do not fall within the scope of a dealer-client relationship "whether they entered into a transaction or not", since this is an extension to claims regarding the violation of privacy by the very receipt and collection of the information , and I am of the opinion that it is not sufficient to publish or make a request made (in the past) by the Respondent, to those who are not Facebook members, as claimed, in violation of their privacy. In order to determine that the claim for invasion of privacy in relation to the actions of receiving and collecting information relates to a "dealer-customer" relationship, especially when there is no allegation that there was any connection between the members of the group and the respondent following the presentation of the advertisement regarding joining Facebook.