HOW TO SERVE LEGAL PAPERS ON FACEBOOK

Serving “Facebook”: Why the Name on Your Complaint Determines Whether Your Service Is Valid

Facebook is a product. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the legal entity. That distinction, invisible in everyday language, is the threshold issue in every lawsuit, subpoena, and civil demand directed at the platform that three billion people use daily. Facebook, Inc. — the Delaware corporation originally incorporated on December 15, 2004 — was renamed Meta Platforms, Inc. on October 28, 2021, when Mark Zuckerberg announced the company’s pivot to the metaverse and its broader identity as a technology conglomerate operating Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Facebook, Inc. no longer exists as a registered legal entity. A summons naming “Facebook, Inc.” names a defunct filing and is facially defective.

The page you are reading is titled “how to serve legal papers on Facebook” because that is what plaintiffs search. The answer is: serve Meta Platforms, Inc. — the Delaware stock corporation that operates the Facebook platform, along with Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, Messenger, and Meta’s hardware and virtual reality products. Instagram LLC and WhatsApp LLC are separate wholly owned subsidiaries with their own registered agent filings — relevant when the claim is specific to those platforms. Meta Platforms Technologies LLC (formerly Facebook Technologies LLC) operates the Oculus and Meta Quest VR hardware business. For most consumer, advertising, privacy, and content moderation claims arising from the Facebook platform, Meta Platforms, Inc. is the correct named defendant.

Undisputed Legal has served process on Meta Platforms, Inc. and its subsidiaries across California, Delaware, New York, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington D.C. — spanning the full range of FTC antitrust proceedings, BIPA biometric class actions, Cambridge Analytica follow-on privacy suits, securities class actions, and content moderation litigation. Our GPS-verified affidavits, entity-confirmation review, and current CT Corporation System registered agent records eliminate the threshold procedural risk before it becomes a motion that costs your client time and positioning. Call (800) 774-6922 or place your order below to begin.

Why Serving Meta Platforms Is More Complex Than It Appears

Facebook, Inc. was retired in October 2021 — naming it today is a defect. Meta’s October 28, 2021 corporate rename was a legal conversion of Facebook, Inc. into Meta Platforms, Inc. under Delaware law — not a rebranding exercise that left both entities active. The entity “Facebook, Inc.” ceased to exist as an active Delaware corporation on that date. Despite more than four years of public record, pro se filings and even some attorney-drafted complaints continue to name “Facebook, Inc.” as the defendant. CT Corporation System will receive service addressed to Facebook, Inc. and may forward it — but Meta’s litigation team will challenge service on the ground that the named entity has no active registration matching that name. Name Meta Platforms, Inc. in all actions filed after October 28, 2021.

“Facebook” is a brand, not a legal entity. Facebook is the name of a social media platform and application operated by Meta Platforms, Inc. It has no separate corporate existence, no registered agent, no Secretary of State filing, and no EIN independent of Meta Platforms, Inc. Complaints that name only “Facebook” — without specifying Meta Platforms, Inc. — name nothing that can be served. The correct defendant for claims arising from the Facebook platform (feed algorithm, News Feed, Marketplace, Groups, Facebook Ads, Facebook Gaming, Messenger) is Meta Platforms, Inc.

Instagram LLC and WhatsApp LLC — separate entities with separate registered agents. Instagram LLC is a Delaware limited liability company acquired by Facebook in April 2012 for $1 billion. WhatsApp LLC (formerly WhatsApp Inc., converted to an LLC) is a Delaware limited liability company acquired in February 2014 for $19 billion. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of Meta Platforms, Inc. and both maintain their own registered agent designations separate from Meta Platforms, Inc.’s CT Corporation System filing. If your claim arises specifically from Instagram — creator account termination, Instagram Shopping disputes, influencer marketing contract claims, Instagram-specific data privacy claims — or from WhatsApp — encryption disputes, business messaging API claims, privacy violations specific to WhatsApp’s platform — verify the current registered agent for the applicable entity through the California or Delaware Secretary of State before serving. Serving Meta Platforms, Inc. alone for a claim that runs against Instagram LLC or WhatsApp LLC may generate a standing or privity challenge at the motion to dismiss stage.

FTC antitrust — the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisition challenge. The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust complaint against Facebook (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) in December 2020, amended in August 2021, alleging that Facebook illegally maintained its personal social networking monopoly by acquiring Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 as nascent competitive threats. Judge James Boasberg of the D.D.C. allowed the amended complaint to proceed. That case — FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — is in active discovery and trial preparation as of 2026. Private plaintiff antitrust follow-on actions arising from the FTC case, and state attorney general parallel investigations, generate substantial service demand on Meta Platforms, Inc. in the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia federal courts.

Illinois BIPA — facial recognition tag suggestions. Meta’s “tag suggestions” feature on Facebook automatically identified faces in uploaded photos and suggested tagging them to specific users — collecting facial geometry scans within the meaning of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14). A $650 million BIPA class action settlement in the Patel v. Facebook case was approved by the Ninth Circuit in February 2021, making it the largest BIPA settlement to date at that time. Subsequent BIPA actions against Meta’s Reels, Instagram facial analysis, and Meta Quest facial geometry scanning features continue to generate BIPA service volume in Illinois. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the correct defendant; there is no separate Illinois Meta entity.

Cambridge Analytica aftermath and ongoing privacy litigation. The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal — in which user data from up to 87 million Facebook accounts was harvested without consent and used in political advertising — generated FTC enforcement, congressional testimony, and waves of private plaintiff class action litigation. The $5 billion FTC settlement (2019) was the largest ever levied against a technology company at the time. Ongoing privacy class actions arising from Cambridge Analytica-related data misuse, the subsequent FTC consent order compliance regime, and parallel state AG privacy investigations continue to generate service on Meta Platforms, Inc. in California, New York, and Washington D.C.

Securities class actions and Zuckerberg governance litigation. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation subject to both federal securities class action litigation under the Securities Exchange Act and state corporate governance actions in Delaware Chancery Court. Securities class actions arising from material misstatements about user privacy practices, data breach disclosure timing, and advertising revenue projections name Meta Platforms, Inc. as the corporate defendant alongside individual officer and director defendants. Delaware Chancery shareholder derivative claims — challenging Zuckerberg’s dual-class share structure, related-party transactions, and board independence — are filed directly against Meta Platforms, Inc. in Wilmington.

Section 230 content moderation and platform liability cases. Meta Platforms, Inc. is one of the most frequently named defendants in Section 230 litigation — cases challenging Meta’s content moderation decisions, algorithmic amplification of harmful content, and platform design features alleged to cause harm to minors. These cases include state AG actions challenging Instagram’s effects on teenage mental health (coordinated multistate litigation filed in 2023), wrongful death claims arising from content Meta is alleged to have amplified, and First Amendment challenges to content removal decisions. Section 230 litigation creates service demand in California (NDCA), New York (SDNY), and state courts in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Meta Platforms Corporate Structure: Who to Name and Who Not to Name

Meta Platforms, Inc. — Delaware stock corporation; publicly traded NASDAQ: META; headquartered at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94025. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the correct defendant for virtually all U.S. litigation arising from the Facebook platform (including Marketplace, Groups, Facebook Ads, Messenger, and Facebook Gaming), the Threads platform, and Meta’s cross-platform advertising and data infrastructure. Meta Platforms, Inc. is also the employer of record for Meta’s direct employees and the correct defendant for Meta-level securities claims and corporate governance disputes. Registered agent: CT Corporation System in most U.S. states.

Facebook, Inc. — Former legal name. Facebook, Inc. was renamed Meta Platforms, Inc. on October 28, 2021. It no longer exists as an active legal entity. Name Meta Platforms, Inc. in all actions filed after October 28, 2021. Filing a complaint or subpoena naming “Facebook, Inc.” names a defunct entity and will generate a challenge to service validity.

Instagram LLC — Delaware limited liability company; wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc.; acquired April 2012; originally based in San Francisco CA. Instagram LLC is the correct defendant for claims specific to the Instagram platform: creator account suspension and monetization disputes, Instagram Shopping and commerce claims, influencer marketing agreement breaches, Instagram-specific data collection and privacy violations, and COPPA violations involving Instagram accounts held by minors. Instagram LLC maintains its own registered agent filing separate from Meta Platforms, Inc. Confirm the current registered agent through the Delaware or California Secretary of State before serving Instagram LLC.

WhatsApp LLC — Delaware limited liability company; wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc.; acquired February 2014 as WhatsApp Inc., converted to LLC; headquartered in Menlo Park CA. WhatsApp LLC is the correct defendant for claims specific to the WhatsApp platform: privacy violations involving end-to-end encryption representations, WhatsApp Business API disputes, data sharing with Meta in violation of WhatsApp’s stated privacy policy, and international data transfer claims arising from WhatsApp’s global user base. Confirm the current registered agent through the Delaware or California Secretary of State before serving WhatsApp LLC.

Meta Platforms Technologies LLC — Delaware LLC; formerly Facebook Technologies LLC (renamed alongside the corporate rebranding in October 2021); headquartered in Menlo Park CA. Meta Platforms Technologies LLC is the entity that develops and sells Meta Quest VR headsets, Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, and Meta’s augmented and virtual reality hardware platform. Claims involving Meta Quest product defects, VR hardware patent disputes, biometric data collected through eye-tracking and facial mapping in Meta Quest headsets (a separate BIPA exposure from Facebook’s face recognition feature), and AR platform licensing disputes are directed at Meta Platforms Technologies LLC. Confirm registered agent through the Delaware Secretary of State.

Meta Payments Inc. — formerly Facebook Payments Inc. (renamed October 2021); financial services regulatory entity for Meta Pay (formerly Facebook Pay) and in-app payment processing. Claims involving Meta Pay payment disputes, unauthorized transaction processing, or money-transmission regulatory compliance are potentially directed at Meta Payments Inc. rather than Meta Platforms, Inc. directly — confirm the correct entity before serving.

Our Process: How Undisputed Legal Serves Meta Platforms, Inc.

Step 1 — Entity and Jurisdiction Verification. Before dispatching any server, we confirm the exact legal name of the Meta entity named in your complaint, subpoena, or administrative action. We verify whether you have named Meta Platforms, Inc. (correct for Facebook platform and cross-platform claims), Instagram LLC or WhatsApp LLC (for platform-specific claims), Meta Platforms Technologies LLC (for VR/AR hardware claims), or another subsidiary. We flag the Facebook, Inc./Meta Platforms, Inc. naming discrepancy before dispatch — every time — because it remains the most common entity error in Meta litigation. We confirm active registration status in the state where service will be executed through the applicable Secretary of State database.

Step 2 — Registered Agent Address Confirmation. We pull the current CT Corporation System office address for the state where service is ordered. In California — Meta’s operational headquarters state and highest-volume service jurisdiction — CT Corporation is located at 818 W. 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Note: Meta’s campus address (1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025) is not a valid registered agent address. Serving documents at Meta’s campus creates an ambiguous, challengeable service record. We verify the CT Corporation address against current Secretary of State records at every dispatch.

Step 3 — Document Review. We review your summons, complaint, subpoena, and all accompanying documents before dispatch: the entity name on the summons must read “Meta Platforms, Inc.” (not “Facebook” or “Facebook, Inc.”); service copies must be complete; court-specific cover sheet requirements must be satisfied. For actions naming both Meta Platforms, Inc. and a subsidiary (e.g., Instagram LLC), we confirm separate service packages and registered agent addresses for each named defendant.

Step 4 — Service Planning and Scheduling. Routine Service first attempts are scheduled within 3–7 business days of order placement. Rush Service first attempts are within 1–2 business days. Same-Day Service dispatches documents received during normal business hours for same-business-day delivery. FTC antitrust follow-on matters in the District of Columbia and multistate AG actions with approaching filing deadlines are flagged for prioritized dispatch and direct counsel coordination.

Step 5 — Execution with GPS Verification. Our servers carry GPS-enabled devices that timestamp and geolocate each service attempt at the moment of delivery. In New York City’s five boroughs, our servers hold active DCWP process server licenses as required by New York City law. Photo documentation supplements GPS data on every corporate delivery. Every attempt — successful or not — is logged with full GPS metadata and timestamped records that support the affidavit.

Step 6 — GPS-Verified Affidavit of Service. Every completed service produces a GPS-verified affidavit identifying the server, the Meta entity served, the CT Corporation System office, the date and time, precise GPS coordinates, and the method of delivery. The affidavit is formatted to the filing court’s local rules and delivered in final, court-ready form within 24 hours of service completion. For multistate coordinated AG actions and federal securities class actions, we coordinate directly with lead counsel on affidavit formatting to the filing court’s requirements.

Where to Serve Legal Papers on Meta Platforms — State by State

This section identifies the registered agent address and controlling statute for each primary Meta Platforms service jurisdiction. Service rules vary by entity type, case category, and court — consult your attorney to confirm the applicable method, timing requirements, and entity identification for your specific action before proceeding.

California — Operational Headquarters and Highest-Volume Jurisdiction. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered as a foreign corporation authorized to do business in California, with its principal place of business at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94025. Service on Meta Platforms, Inc. in California runs to CT Corporation System — not to the Menlo Park campus. Meta’s registered agent in California is CT Corporation System, located at 818 W. 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017. California is the highest-volume Meta service jurisdiction: NDCA privacy class actions (Cambridge Analytica, data sharing with advertisers, off-Facebook activity data), CCPA enforcement-parallel consumer claims, Section 230 teen mental health litigation, COPPA violations on Instagram, employment and contractor claims, and Ninth Circuit antitrust appeals all generate service in this state. Serving documents at Meta’s Menlo Park campus is not equivalent to registered agent service and will be challenged. CCP § 416.10 (foreign corporations); Cal. Corp. Code § 2110.

Delaware — Home State for Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a Delaware stock corporation. Its Delaware registered agent is Corporation Trust Company (not CT Corporation System — the same agent/address distinction that applies to all Delaware domestic corporations) at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Delaware is the venue for shareholder derivative actions arising from Meta’s dual-class voting structure (Class A for public shareholders, Class B for Zuckerberg retaining voting control), related-party transaction challenges, and Delaware Chancery Court governance litigation. The District of Delaware generates patent litigation service on Meta Platforms, Inc. through the same 1209 Orange Street address. 8 Del. C. § 321.

New York — Securities Class Actions and Commercial Disputes. The Southern District of New York is the primary venue for federal securities class action litigation against Meta Platforms, Inc. — including claims arising from the Cambridge Analytica data misuse disclosures, the 2021 Haugen whistleblower disclosures about internal research on Instagram’s effect on teenagers, and advertising revenue projection misstatements. State court commercial disputes involving Meta’s advertising platform and enterprise agreements with New York-based media companies are also served in New York. Meta’s registered agent in New York is CT Corporation System, located at 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005. CPLR 311(a)(1); N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 306(b).

Texas — State AG Antitrust and Patent Litigation. Texas is one of the leading states in the multistate attorney general antitrust and privacy investigation against Meta Platforms. Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a separate state privacy lawsuit against Meta in 2022 under the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI Act) — Texas’s biometric privacy analogue to BIPA — related to Meta’s facial recognition features. The Eastern District of Texas generates patent action volume against Meta. Meta’s registered agent in Texas is CT Corporation System, located at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 5.251.

Illinois — BIPA Facial Recognition Class Actions. Illinois is the jurisdiction where Meta’s most significant biometric privacy litigation has been resolved and continues to develop. The $650 million Patel v. Facebook BIPA settlement (2021) — arising from Facebook’s face-recognition tag suggestion feature — was the largest BIPA settlement at that time. Ongoing BIPA actions against Meta’s Reels face analysis, Instagram photo tagging, and Meta Quest eye-tracking features continue in Illinois. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the defendant in Illinois BIPA actions; there is no separate Illinois Meta entity. Meta’s registered agent in Illinois is CT Corporation System, located at 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604. 735 ILCS 5/2-204.

Virginia — Federal Regulatory Proximity. The Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) generates federal regulatory proceeding service and parallel civil actions arising from FTC investigations and enforcement actions against Meta Platforms. FTC enforcement proceedings, congressional subpoena service, and private plaintiff actions filed in EDVA targeting Meta’s advertising market practices serve Meta through CT Corporation’s Glen Allen, Virginia office. Meta’s registered agent in Virginia is CT Corporation System, located at 4701 Cox Road, Suite 285, Glen Allen, VA 23060. Va. Code Ann. § 13.1-766 (foreign corporations).

Washington D.C. — FTC Antitrust Primary Venue. The District of Columbia is the forum for FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — the landmark antitrust case challenging Meta’s Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions — pending before Judge James Boasberg in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Private plaintiff follow-on antitrust actions, state AG coordination filings naming D.C. as a plaintiff jurisdiction, and administrative proceedings before the FTC itself generate service demand on Meta Platforms, Inc. in Washington D.C. Meta’s registered agent in the District of Columbia is CT Corporation System, located at 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005. D.C. Code § 29-104.08.

Service Fees for Meta Platforms Process Service

Service Type	Timeline	Fee
Routine Service	First attempt within 3–7 business days	$100–$150
Rush Service	First attempt within 1–2 business days	$200–$250
Same-Day Service	Same business day (documents received during business hours)	$250–$300
Email / Mail Service	Where permitted by court order	$75
Stake-Out Service	Includes 1 hour; additional time billed hourly	$325–$425 + $100–$150/hr

Why Professional Process Service Matters for Meta Litigation

Meta Platforms, Inc. maintains one of the most active corporate litigation portfolios in the United States, with concurrent matters spanning federal antitrust, state privacy enforcement, securities class actions, patent disputes, BIPA class actions, COPPA enforcement follow-ons, and Section 230 content moderation challenges across dozens of federal and state courts simultaneously. Meta’s in-house legal team and outside counsel — including firms on retainer for FTC antitrust, securities defense, and privacy class action work — are experienced at identifying service defects and raising them early as threshold procedural motions. A GPS-verified affidavit of service on the correct registered agent, formatted to the filing court’s local rules, forecloses that procedural argument before it can be raised.

The Facebook, Inc./Meta Platforms, Inc. naming error is the most persistent and highest-frequency service defect in Meta litigation — and it is entirely preventable. The rename occurred in October 2021; there is no litigation justification for continuing to name “Facebook, Inc.” as a defendant. Meta’s litigation team will move to quash service on a “Facebook, Inc.” summons because the named entity has no active registration in any Secretary of State database. The fix requires re-serving with a corrected summons on the correct entity — Meta Platforms, Inc. — which costs time and may affect responsive pleading deadlines. We verify entity names at Step 1, before any server is dispatched.

The Instagram LLC and WhatsApp LLC subsidiary distinction is litigation-strategic, not merely technical. The FTC’s antitrust theory in FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. specifically targets Meta’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp as competitive acquisitions. If your private antitrust claim parallels the FTC’s theory, naming only Meta Platforms, Inc. — and not Instagram LLC and/or WhatsApp LLC as named defendants — may limit the scope of your injunctive relief request and affect the alter-ego analysis in discovery. Cases that should name multiple Meta entities require separate service on each through each entity’s registered agent. We coordinate multi-entity service packages and confirm each entity’s current registered agent before dispatch.

BIPA litigation in Illinois carries the highest per-plaintiff statutory damages of any biometric privacy statute in the United States. The $650 million Patel v. Facebook settlement was negotiated in the shadow of uncapped statutory damages across a class of millions of Illinois users. Meta’s litigation team treats BIPA service in Illinois with the same scrutiny it brings to FTC enforcement proceedings — every element of service, from entity identification to affidavit formatting, is subject to challenge. A GPS-verified affidavit documenting precise delivery to the CT Corporation Chicago office, with timestamp and GPS coordinates, provides the evidentiary foundation needed to survive that scrutiny. Call (800) 774-6922 to discuss Illinois BIPA service protocols before dispatch.

The Texas CUBI Act (Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act) action — filed by the Texas AG in 2022 — created a separate state biometric privacy litigation front for Meta in Texas. Unlike BIPA, CUBI is enforced by the state AG rather than through a private right of action, but civil plaintiffs in Texas privacy cases related to facial recognition are naming Meta Platforms, Inc. and seeking to serve through CT Corporation’s Dallas office. Texas patent litigation in EDTX and WDTX also generates separate service demand. Our Dallas office protocol covers both the biometric and patent dockets.

The D.C. FTC antitrust case — FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — is in active discovery and trial preparation. Private follow-on antitrust plaintiffs filing in the District of Columbia face the same tight federal scheduling orders as government plaintiffs. First service attempt within 3–7 business days, documented with GPS-verified records, is the baseline for keeping pace with D.C. federal docket timing. For rush matters in D.C. antitrust or regulatory proceedings, contact our team directly.

For New York securities class action service at CT Corporation’s 28 Liberty Street office in Manhattan — inside New York City’s five boroughs — our servers hold active DCWP process server licenses as required by New York City law. Meta faces significant securities litigation exposure arising from the Haugen whistleblower disclosures (2021), Cambridge Analytica civil follow-ons, and advertising revenue misrepresentation claims, all filed primarily in the SDNY. Our network spans 120+ countries for Meta’s international subsidiary service — including Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and other EU-entity Hague Convention service — where U.S. domestic registered agent service does not apply.

Compliance and Legal Framework for Serving Meta Platforms

8 Del. C. § 321 governs service on Delaware stock corporations through their registered agent — the home-state rule for Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta designates Corporation Trust Company at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 as its Delaware registered agent. This is the entry point for Delaware Chancery Court governance and derivative actions and District of Delaware patent service.

CCP § 416.10 / Cal. Corp. Code § 2110 govern service on domestic and foreign corporations in California respectively. As a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in California, Meta Platforms, Inc. is served in California under § 2110 through its designated agent, CT Corporation System, at 818 W. 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Service at Meta’s Menlo Park campus — even if documents are received by Meta personnel — does not constitute valid registered agent service under California law and is subject to challenge.

740 ILCS 14 — Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA requires private entities collecting biometric data to maintain a written retention and destruction policy, obtain written informed consent, and refrain from selling or profiting from biometric data. The private right of action under BIPA § 20 provides $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation without proof of actual harm. Meta’s facial recognition tag suggestion feature (now disabled), Reels face analysis, Instagram photo tagging, and Meta Quest eye-tracking are all potential sources of BIPA exposure. Service on Meta Platforms, Inc. in Illinois under 735 ILCS 5/2-204 is the threshold act in every Illinois BIPA action.

15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act § 5) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FTC’s antitrust and privacy enforcement actions against Meta arise under this statute, along with Section 7 of the Clayton Act challenging the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions as anticompetitive. Private plaintiff antitrust actions arising from Meta’s advertising market conduct invoke Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the same Delaware and D.C. federal venue framework as the FTC action.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA) governs California consumer privacy rights including data access, correction, deletion, and opt-out of sale. CCPA enforcement actions and private actions arising from data breaches involving California residents’ personal data name Meta Platforms, Inc. as the defendant and serve through CT Corporation in Los Angeles. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) is independently empowered to bring enforcement actions post-CPRA (January 2023), separate from the Attorney General.

15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. (COPPA) governs the collection of personal information from children under 13. FTC enforcement-parallel private actions and state AG COPPA cases arising from Instagram’s collection of data from underage users — and Meta’s alleged knowledge that significant portions of Instagram’s user base are under 13 — name Meta Platforms, Inc. and, for Instagram-specific claims, Instagram LLC as defendants.

The service rules, statutes, and addresses identified in this section are provided for informational purposes and are current as of the date of this publication. Service requirements vary by court, case type, jurisdiction, and entity. Consult your attorney to confirm the applicable service method, timing requirements, and correct entity identification for your specific action before proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions About Serving Meta Platforms, Inc.

Is “Facebook” the correct entity to name, or do I name Meta Platforms, Inc.?

Name Meta Platforms, Inc. “Facebook” is the name of a social media platform and application — it is not a registered legal entity in any Secretary of State database. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the Delaware stock corporation that owns and operates the Facebook platform, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, Messenger, and Meta’s hardware products. For virtually all U.S. civil litigation arising from the Facebook platform — including advertising disputes, privacy claims, data breach actions, content moderation challenges, and employment matters — Meta Platforms, Inc. is the correct named defendant. Instagram LLC and WhatsApp LLC are separate subsidiaries for platform-specific claims involving those products.

What happened to Facebook, Inc. — can I still serve that entity?

No. Facebook, Inc. was renamed Meta Platforms, Inc. on October 28, 2021. The entity “Facebook, Inc.” no longer exists as an active legal entity registered in any U.S. Secretary of State database. Any summons, complaint, or subpoena naming “Facebook, Inc.” names a defunct entity. Service on CT Corporation System addressed to “Facebook, Inc.” may be received and forwarded internally, but Meta’s litigation team will challenge the validity of service on the ground that the named entity has no active registration. The correct entity name for all actions filed after October 28, 2021 is Meta Platforms, Inc.

Which entity do I name for an Instagram-specific claim?

Instagram LLC — a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by Meta Platforms, Inc. Instagram LLC is the operating entity for the Instagram platform: the photo-sharing and Reels application, Instagram Shopping, the Creator Marketplace, and the Instagram Business API. Claims specific to Instagram — creator account termination without recourse, Instagram-specific data collection practices, influencer marketing agreement disputes, and COPPA violations involving underage Instagram users — should name Instagram LLC as the defendant (and potentially Meta Platforms, Inc. as well, depending on the alter-ego and control theories). Instagram LLC has its own registered agent designation separate from Meta Platforms, Inc. Confirm the current registered agent through the California or Delaware Secretary of State business entity search before serving.

Which entity do I name for a WhatsApp claim?

WhatsApp LLC — a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly WhatsApp Inc. (converted to LLC form after Meta’s acquisition). WhatsApp LLC is the operating entity for the WhatsApp messaging platform. Claims specific to WhatsApp — privacy violations involving WhatsApp’s data sharing with Meta that contradicts WhatsApp’s stated privacy promises at the time of acquisition, WhatsApp Business API payment and messaging disputes, and international data transfer claims involving WhatsApp’s European and global user data — should name WhatsApp LLC. Confirm the current registered agent through the Delaware or California Secretary of State before serving WhatsApp LLC, as the registered agent designation may differ from Meta Platforms, Inc.’s CT Corporation System filing.

What does the FTC antitrust case mean for my claim involving Meta’s Instagram or WhatsApp acquisition?

The FTC’s antitrust case — FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — alleges that Meta illegally maintained its personal social networking monopoly by acquiring Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014) as nascent competitive threats, rather than competing against them. The case is in active litigation and heading toward trial. A favorable ruling for the FTC could result in structural relief — potentially including a forced divestiture of Instagram or WhatsApp — which would create extraordinary structural complexity for pending private plaintiff claims that implicate those subsidiaries. Private antitrust plaintiffs with claims parallel to the FTC’s theory should name both Meta Platforms, Inc. and the relevant subsidiary (Instagram LLC or WhatsApp LLC) and serve each through its own registered agent. A ruling finding Meta liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act could provide collateral estoppel benefit to private plaintiffs on the monopolization element.

My claim involves Meta Quest VR headsets — which entity do I serve?

Meta Platforms Technologies LLC — formerly Facebook Technologies LLC (renamed October 2021) — is the subsidiary that develops and sells Meta Quest VR headsets, Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, and Meta’s augmented and virtual reality hardware products. Product liability claims involving Meta Quest hardware defects, eye or hand-tracking sensor malfunctions, or VR-related injury claims should name Meta Platforms Technologies LLC as the defendant. Meta Quest VR headsets also collect facial geometry and eye-tracking data that may constitute biometric identifiers under BIPA (740 ILCS 14) — a distinct BIPA exposure from Meta’s Facebook facial recognition tag suggestion feature. Confirm the current registered agent for Meta Platforms Technologies LLC through the Delaware Secretary of State before serving.

What is BIPA and how does it apply to Meta’s facial recognition features?

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14) requires any private entity that collects biometric identifiers — including retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, scans of hand or face geometry — to: (1) publish a written policy for retention and destruction of biometric data; (2) obtain written consent before collecting any biometric identifier; and (3) refrain from selling, leasing, or otherwise profiting from biometric data. BIPA’s private right of action provides liquidated damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, recoverable without proof of actual harm. Meta’s Facebook tag suggestion feature — which automatically identified faces in uploaded photos using facial geometry scan technology — generated the landmark Patel v. Facebook BIPA class action, settled for $650 million in 2021. BIPA continues to apply to Meta’s Reels face analysis, Instagram photo tagging assistance, and Meta Quest eye-tracking data. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the correct defendant in Illinois BIPA actions; service runs to CT Corporation System, 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604.

How long does Meta have to respond after service on the registered agent?

In California state court, Meta Platforms, Inc. has 30 days to respond after service on the registered agent under CCP § 412.20. In federal court under FRCP Rule 12(a)(1)(A), Meta has 21 days from valid service to answer or file a motion. In the District of Columbia federal court — where the FTC antitrust case is pending — standard federal timelines apply, subject to scheduling orders entered by Judge Boasberg. For BIPA cases filed in Illinois state court, Illinois Code of Civil Procedure § 2-301 governs the response deadline; Illinois federal cases filed in the NDIL follow FRCP timing. Meta’s outside counsel regularly request agreed short extensions in high-volume litigation; any such agreement should be documented in writing and confirmed against your own filing and service verification deadlines before agreeing.

Ready to Serve Meta Platforms? Place Your Order Now

Undisputed Legal has served Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram LLC, WhatsApp LLC, and Meta Platforms Technologies LLC across California, Delaware, New York, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington D.C. Our entity-verification protocol flags the Facebook, Inc./Meta Platforms, Inc. naming error before dispatch — every time. Our CT Corporation System protocols are current across all seven primary Meta service states. Our GPS-verified affidavits are court-ready within 24 hours of service completion, formatted to the specific requirements of the filing court — whether that is the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, or an Illinois BIPA state court.

Place your order through the widget below or call (800) 774-6922 to speak with our team directly. We confirm the correct Meta entity, verify the current CT Corporation address in your jurisdiction, and review entity registration status and applicable service rules before dispatch.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING

Ready to Serve Facebook? Order Now

Every day you wait is a day closer to a missed deadline. Statutes of limitations run. Discovery windows close. Facebook's legal team is already prepared — are you?

Order Service Online — Upload your documents and we begin immediately.
Call (800) 774-6922 — Speak with our team for rush or same-day service.
Email [email protected] — Send documents and we confirm within the hour.

Don't let improper service destroy your case against Facebook. Hire the professionals who do this every day.

Professional Credentials & Affiliations

Undisputed Legal Inc. maintains active membership and affiliations with the following professional organizations: National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS), United States Process Servers Association (USPSA), National Association of Legal Support Professionals (NAOSP), Better Business Bureau (BBB) A+ Rating, New York State Unified Court System, DCWP Licensed Process Server (NYC), International Association of Professional Process Servers, National Notary Association, American Bar Association (ABA) - Allied Member, New York County Lawyers Association, Brooklyn Bar Association, Queens County Bar Association, Bronx County Bar Association, Staten Island Bar Association, Westchester County Bar Association, and Nassau County Bar Association.

Corporate Process Service Resources

Undisputed Legal is the authority in corporate process service. Explore our expertise:

• Complex Corporate Process Service — Advanced Legal Strategies
• How to Serve Business Entities — Corporate Process Service
• Corporate Process Service for Business Entities
• Registered Agents & Process Service — What Businesses Must Know
• Serving Legal Papers at CT Corporation — Step-by-Step Guide
• How to Serve Legal Papers at CT Corporation
• Understanding Registered Agents for Service of Process
• The Model Registered Agents Act and Service of Process
• National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
• Corporate Process Service: Registered Agent Requirements
• Corporate Process Service: A Complete Guide
• Corporate Process Service Laws: Requirements & Compliance
• Complex Corporate Process Service Solutions
• Corporate Process Service: E-Service Requirements & Solutions
• Why Serve Legal Papers Through the New York Secretary of State
• How to Serve Legal Papers on the Delaware Secretary of State
• How to Serve Legal Papers on the New Jersey Secretary of State
• Process Service Rules & Laws: Serving Secretary of State
• New York State Process Server Regulations, Compliance & Liability

Get Directions to Our Manhattan Office