The fraud attempt is absolutely unethical because Ceglia attempted to virtually blackmail Zuckerberg and to force him pay Ceglia as he has already did to Winklevoss twins. In fact, the violation of ethical principles occurred when Ceglia decided to file a lawsuit against the company and Facebook had to protect its interests and legal rights from the fraud attempt. In this regard, Mark Zuckerberg, as the CEO of the company, should play a particularly important part because he had all the information on the relationship between Facebook and Ceglia.
The case of Ceglia violates the principles of fair business since he attempted to scheme against Facebook and its CEO to obtain financial resources which he has no right to possess. Obviously, using fraudulent methods of obtaining financial resources contradicts not only legal but also ethical principles. The fair business conduct implies the elimination of frauds and scheming from business, while Ceglia neglected this principle and violated fundamental ethical norms of the contemporary business. He apparently put his personal interests above interests of his business and business of Mark Zuckerberg.
The threat to the reputation of Mark Zuckerberg may raise the problem of defamation which implies not only legal liability of Ceglia but also ethical considerations. Ceglia could have undermined the business reputation of Zuckerberg because of his false allegations. In fact, if Ceglia allegations were true, Zuckerberg’s reputation would be virtually ruined. His business partners could not trust him. Even though the lawsuit filed by Ceglia was based on fraudulent evidence, the lawsuit itself has already affected the image of Facebook and its CEO. Hence, the unethical behavior of Ceglia may also involve the act of defamation.
Relevant sources of law
The key issues involved in the case are fraud attempt and possible defamation. Both acts are committed by Paul Ceglia, who has filed a lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, demanding a large part of the company’s shares. However, he violated the law himself. Ceglia’s actions are liable to the prosecution under the statutory tort law since both the fraud attempt and defamation are tort law violations.
Both fraud attempt and defamation are types of business torts. Therefore, Ceglia should be prosecuted on the ground of the tort law statutes and similar cases, which have already occurred in the past. Fraud attempts are as frequent in the contemporary business environment as they used to be in the past.
Zuckerberge and Facebook could demand the compensation of damages from the part of Ceglia for possible defamation. In such a way, they would confront Ceglia with a strong counter argument and force him to refuse from filing the lawsuit against the company. However, as Ceglia was certain in his position, he could refuse from stepping aside and refusing from the lawsuit.
In addition, Facebook could file a lawsuit and insist on the defamation being committed by Ceglia, if the latter refuses to pay damages for Zuckerberg and Facebook. In such a way, Facebook would counter attack and, instead of defending from the fraudulent lawsuit, the company would file the lawsuit against the plaintiff and demand the compensation of damages caused by actions of Ceglia.
Thus, the lawsuit filed by Ceglia against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg was fraudulent and the company justly insists on the prosecution of Paul Ceglia.