So, the question at issue here, was whether the plaintiffs’ validly disaffirmed their agreement with Facebook so as to preclude the social media company from using their names and likenesses.
The appellate court, citing Babu v. Petersen—a California Supreme Court decision authored in 1935—chose to resolve this dispute with reference to a general rule of equity: “a party cannot apply to his own use that part of the transaction which may bring to him a benefit, and repudiate the other, which may not be to his interest to fulfill.” Applied to the case at bar, the court decided, statutory disaffirmance under CFC § 6710 cannot cut against the “longstanding and general rule of California” contract law established in Babu.
The court’s point was this: minors, despite having a right of disaffirmance under California law, must express intent to disaffirm the entire agreement, not just hand-selected provisions—here, the term granting Facebook the right to use their names and likenesses. The plaintiffs continued use of Facebook showed a willingness to accept some benefits of the agreement, not a desire to void it in its entirety. It is principally for that reason why dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case was affirmed on appeal.