If this is true, why is this a civil lawsuit? Shouldn't the government prosecutors handle this "hacking" case and demand jail time, like they do for $random_kid playing around with security vulnerabilities?
Because there's probably some clause buried in the ToS that gives them the right to do this, so it would not count as "exceeds authorized access" under the CFAA.
edit: it's not even buried. there's a screen that specifically says "facebook uses aggregated onavo data for market and business analytics"
Make no mistake either, as that was an intentional decision to chase growth in the interests of becoming TBTF. We need to clamp down and make it clear, big mofos do not get to call unilateral shots and that it is not acceptable for terms to be dictated only in one direction. Yes, this complicates the hell out of business logic, but ya know what, the ones who have TBTF'd have drank of the waters of economies of scale to get the sweet draught, it's about damn time they got the bitters too.
I might be sympathetic to this if this was some essential service with strong network effects such that there's no alternative (eg. facebook or whatsapp), but that's not the case here. This is a separate "security" app, of which there's probably dozens of competitors that you can choose from if you don't like the ToS/privacy policy of this one, so the "one sided take it or leave it levels of exploitative entering into contracts at scale" aspect you're decrying really rings hollow.
You mean like a loud ass bell rings? Point out to me a single piece of software utilizing a EULA that supports individual redlining and renegotiation on a user by user basis, with a feedback loop tight enough to be reasonable. I'll wait. The point is there might be the illusion of user choice there, but when the overarching legal framework operates in unity in a take it or leave it fashion, with no escape hatch, every business model behaves the same. No one builds the business willing to charge for contractual dumb pipe, because everyone is just dumping anyone else who won't take the default terms. The entire architecture of our networked world has turned into building machines through which everyone gives up every right and civil protection through a goddamn click, nevermind the fact Third Party Doctrine in this age has completely dismantled the 4th Amendment by extension.
If you want apps priced at $0.99 or even $99.99, standard form, take it or leave it contracts is the only game in town, for pure economic reasons. No company is going to bother getting legal involved to negotiate a bespoke contract for anything with less than 5 figures TCV.
The video near the middle of the page shows fairly clearly what they did, with accurate and understandable descriptions of shady behaviour. I think a capable prosecutor might regard it as difficult to prove that behaviour illegal. Shady, sure, but in dubio pro so why even prosecute.
So that leaves a civil lawsuit. There's no need to persuade a prosecutor for a civil lawsuit, and the balance of evidence counts, there's no in dubio pro.
And other countries definitely allow it.