Facebook, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. district court against numerous defendants alleging that the named defendants engaged in trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and false designation of origin. Facebook seeks to enjoin the defendants from engaging in typosquatting schemes whereby the defendants register internet domain names that are confusingly similar to facebook.com (e.g., facebock.com); potential users of Facebooks website who enter a typographical error are diverted to the typesquatters website, which is designed to look strikingly similar in appearance to Facebooks website, to trick users into thinking that they are using Facebooks website. Facebook served the defendants except 14, who Facebook has not been able to serve personally, by mail, or by telephone. Facebook made a motion to the U.S. district court to be permitted to serve these defendants by sending an email notice to the defendants websites. May Facebook use alternative service of process by sending email notices to the defendants websites? Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65834 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2013) 1. What statute is Facebook using for this method of service? 2. Why might Facebook have needed to serve the company this way? 3. May Facebook use alternative service of process by sending email notices to the defendants' websites? Please support your reasoning.