> Alternately, maybe copyright infringement. Some of the data are considered facts, that are not copyrightable (even in aggregate, in the U.S.).
Facts aren't copyrightable, but a collection of facts might be if there was sufficient creativity involved in the selection and arrangement of the facts.
The big case on this was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), where a company copying a telephone book was found not to be if infringing because the phone book was not be copyrighted.
The Court ruled that there is a constitutional requirement for at least some minimal degree of creativity in a work for it to be copyrighted. In the case of a phone book, neither the selection criteria (everyone in this region who has a phone) nor the arrangement (alphabetical order by name).
The Court also noted that if there is sufficient creativity in the selection or arrangement to support copyright, the copyright would be on that selection and arrangement. The underlying facts would still be uncopyrightable. In the case of the phone book, for example, that would mean that even if Rural had used a creative arrangement and could copyright that, Feist could still take all the names and phone numbers and produce its alphabetical phone book from them.
Applying this to Facebook, it may be that they do have copyright in the selection and arrangement of facts that were scraped. Whether or not the scraper is infringing would hinge on what they did with those facts.