I need help answering the 3 questions at the very bottom im having a hard time figuring it out.

'

The Facebook Phishing and Spamming Case Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher, No. C 09-05842 JF 2009 WL 5095269 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") alleges that Defendants Jeremi Fisher, Philip Porembski, and Ryan Shimeall, individually and through various affiliated corporate entities (collectively, "Defendants"), h engaged in an ongoing phishing and spamming campaign against Facebook and its users in violation of (1) the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ("CAN-SPAM"), 15 USC. 7701 et seq. ; (2) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.SC. 1030 et seq Cal. Penal Code S 502; and (4) Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 22948. Facebook also asserts a claim for breach of contract. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 65(b), Facebook seeks a temporary restraining order "TRO") enjoining Defendants from engaging in the alleged phishing and spamming activities against Facebook and its users. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted I. Background Facebook is a well-known social networking website with over 175 million users. Facebook users must register with the website and agree to Facebook's Terms of Use. Upon registration, users are given a unique username and password to access their own user profiles as well as the profiles of their "friends." Users may send messages to each other through the Facebook web- site, either by e-mail or by postings on a user's "wall." To preserve the integrity of its website, Facebook maintains strict policies against spam or any other form of unsolicited advertising. The Terms of Use prohibit any activity that would impair the operation of the website, including the use of data-mining "bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers" to gain access to users' login informa- tion, posting of unsolicited advertising or circulation of such advertising via e-mail, providing e personal information or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself, or any use of another person's account without Facebook's prior authorization Facebook alleges that Defendants are registered Facebook users who are bound by the Terms of Use. Since November 2008, Defendants allegedly have engaged in a phishing and spam ming scheme that has compromised the accounts of a substantial number of Facebook users Defendants' activity allegedly has escalated substantially. The alleged scheme generally operates as follows: Defendants send emails to multiple Facebook users. The emails appear to be legitimate messages and ask the recipients to click on a link to another website. That website is a phishing site designed to trick users into divulging their Facebook login information. Once users divulge the information, Defendants then use it to send spam to the friends of the users, and as the cycle repeats the number of compromised Facebook accounts increases rapidly. Facebook also alleges that certain spam messages redirect users to websites that pay Defendants for each user visit While Facebook has been reasonably successful in combating this scheme, the expanding scope of the operation has made it increasingly difficult to neutralize Defendants' activities Il. Discussion The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the alance of the hardships tips in the movant's favor. Roe v Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-02 (9th Cir.1998); Apple Computer, inc. v. Formula Int'l Inc., 725 F.2d 521,523 (9th Cir.1984). These formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. In the instant case, Facebook engaged in substantial investigative activity before filing suit and has presented sufficient evidence in support of the instant motion to demonstrate a likelihood success on the merits with respect to the claims asserted in the operative complaint. In addition re is a clear possibility of irreparable injury with respect both to Facebook's reputation and to personal privacy of Facebook users. See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v John D. Brush and Inc., 240 F3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2001)(Evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the possibility of irreparable harm."); see also MySpace, Wallace, 498 FSupp.2d 1293, 1305 (C.D.Cal 2007) (activities similar to the scheme alleged arm). Finally, the balance of hardships clearly favors ebook because it has expended significant time and resources to combat Defendants activities, which as noted above are expanding at a considerable rate. See id. (The balance of avor of Plaintiff here. Plaintiff has already expended substantial time and money in combating Defendant's unsolicited messages and postings, and has dealt with over 800 resulting user complaints.") Likewise, Defendants will suffer little or no hardship if enjoined from the instant case caused irrepara their allegedly illegal scheme. Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to temporary injunctive relief Order Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Jeremi Fisher, Philip Porembski, Ryan Simeall, and Choko Systems LLC, Harm, Inc, PP Web Services LLC, and iMedia Online Services LLC, and all of their officers, agent servants, employees and attorneys and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order are hereby enjoined from: a. Initiating or procuring transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic messages on or 1. b. Accessing or attempting to access Facebook's website, networks, data, information, user information, profiles, computers, and/or computer systems; c. Soliciting, requesting, or taking any action to induce Facebook users to provide identifying information or representing that such solicitation, request, or action is being done with d. Retaining any copies, electronic or otherwise, of any Facebook information, including login e. Engaging in any activity that alters, damages, deletes, destroys, disrupts, diminishes the Facebook's authorization or approval information and/or passwords, obtained through illegitimate and/or unlawful actions; quality of, interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of Facebook's computers, computer system computer network, data, website, or services f. Engaging in any unlawful activities alleged in the operative complaint; g. Entering or accessing the physical premises or facilities of Facebook or its counsel; and h. Engaging in any activity that violates, and/or encourages, induces or facilitates violations of the Terms of Use attached as Exhibit A to this 4 Order This Order shall take effect immediatel Court on Facebook's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2. shall remain in effect pending a hearing in this Case Questions 1. Why was Facebook seeking injunctive relief against the defendants in Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher? 2. Why was Facebook entitled to a temporary restraining order? 3. Why do you think Facebook sought an injunction rather money damages? The Facebook Phishing and Spamming Case Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher, No. C 09-05842 JF 2009 WL 5095269 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") alleges that Defendants Jeremi Fisher, Philip Porembski, and Ryan Shimeall, individually and through various affiliated corporate entities (collectively, "Defendants"), h engaged in an ongoing phishing and spamming campaign against Facebook and its users in violation of (1) the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ("CAN-SPAM"), 15 USC. 7701 et seq. ; (2) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.SC. 1030 et seq Cal. Penal Code S 502; and (4) Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 22948. Facebook also asserts a claim for breach of contract. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 65(b), Facebook seeks a temporary restraining order "TRO") enjoining Defendants from engaging in the alleged phishing and spamming activities against Facebook and its users. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted I. Background Facebook is a well-known social networking website with over 175 million users. Facebook users must register with the website and agree to Facebook's Terms of Use. Upon registration, users are given a unique username and password to access their own user profiles as well as the profiles of their "friends." Users may send messages to each other through the Facebook web- site, either by e-mail or by postings on a user's "wall." To preserve the integrity of its website, Facebook maintains strict policies against spam or any other form of unsolicited advertising. The Terms of Use prohibit any activity that would impair the operation of the website, including the use of data-mining "bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers" to gain access to users' login informa- tion, posting of unsolicited advertising or circulation of such advertising via e-mail, providing e personal information or falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting oneself, or any use of another person's account without Facebook's prior authorization Facebook alleges that Defendants are registered Facebook users who are bound by the Terms of Use. Since November 2008, Defendants allegedly have engaged in a phishing and spam ming scheme that has compromised the accounts of a substantial number of Facebook users Defendants' activity allegedly has escalated substantially. The alleged scheme generally operates as follows: Defendants send emails to multiple Facebook users. The emails appear to be legitimate messages and ask the recipients to click on a link to another website. That website is a phishing site designed to trick users into divulging their Facebook login information. Once users divulge the information, Defendants then use it to send spam to the friends of the users, and as the cycle repeats the number of compromised Facebook accounts increases rapidly. Facebook also alleges that certain spam messages redirect users to websites that pay Defendants for each user visit While Facebook has been reasonably successful in combating this scheme, the expanding scope of the operation has made it increasingly difficult to neutralize Defendants' activities Il. Discussion The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the alance of the hardships tips in the movant's favor. Roe v Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-02 (9th Cir.1998); Apple Computer, inc. v. Formula Int'l Inc., 725 F.2d 521,523 (9th Cir.1984). These formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. In the instant case, Facebook engaged in substantial investigative activity before filing suit and has presented sufficient evidence in support of the instant motion to demonstrate a likelihood success on the merits with respect to the claims asserted in the operative complaint. In addition re is a clear possibility of irreparable injury with respect both to Facebook's reputation and to personal privacy of Facebook users. See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v John D. Brush and Inc., 240 F3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2001)(Evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the possibility of irreparable harm."); see also MySpace, Wallace, 498 FSupp.2d 1293, 1305 (C.D.Cal 2007) (activities similar to the scheme alleged arm). Finally, the balance of hardships clearly favors ebook because it has expended significant time and resources to combat Defendants activities, which as noted above are expanding at a considerable rate. See id. (The balance of avor of Plaintiff here. Plaintiff has already expended substantial time and money in combating Defendant's unsolicited messages and postings, and has dealt with over 800 resulting user complaints.") Likewise, Defendants will suffer little or no hardship if enjoined from the instant case caused irrepara their allegedly illegal scheme. Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to temporary injunctive relief Order Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Jeremi Fisher, Philip Porembski, Ryan Simeall, and Choko Systems LLC, Harm, Inc, PP Web Services LLC, and iMedia Online Services LLC, and all of their officers, agent servants, employees and attorneys and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order are hereby enjoined from: a. Initiating or procuring transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic messages on or 1. b. Accessing or attempting to access Facebook's website, networks, data, information, user information, profiles, computers, and/or computer systems; c. Soliciting, requesting, or taking any action to induce Facebook users to provide identifying information or representing that such solicitation, request, or action is being done with d. Retaining any copies, electronic or otherwise, of any Facebook information, including login e. Engaging in any activity that alters, damages, deletes, destroys, disrupts, diminishes the Facebook's authorization or approval information and/or passwords, obtained through illegitimate and/or unlawful actions; quality of, interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of Facebook's computers, computer system computer network, data, website, or services f. Engaging in any unlawful activities alleged in the operative complaint; g. Entering or accessing the physical premises or facilities of Facebook or its counsel; and h. Engaging in any activity that violates, and/or encourages, induces or facilitates violations of the Terms of Use attached as Exhibit A to this 4 Order This Order shall take effect immediatel Court on Facebook's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2. shall remain in effect pending a hearing in this Case Questions 1. Why was Facebook seeking injunctive relief against the defendants in Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher? 2. Why was Facebook entitled to a temporary restraining order? 3. Why do you think Facebook sought an injunction rather money damages