On March 7, 2013, District Judge Engelmayer of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. PCCare247 Inc. granting the FTC's motion to serve documents on five defendants located in India by e-mail and Facebook. The court found that such service, when made in conjunction with service by e-mail, comported with due process. The court noted that while service by Facebook was somewhat novel, courts must be open to new technological means of service.

The FTC initiated the action in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the defendants, located in India, operated a fraudulent scheme that tricked American consumers into spending money to fix non-existent problems with their computers. The FTC submitted the summons and complaint to the Indian Central Authority for service on the defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(f)(1) and the Hague Convention. The FTC also sent these documents to the defendants by e-mail, FedEx and personal service. Delivery was confirmed by FedEx and the process server, but the Indian Central Authority never formally served the defendants pursuant to the Hague Convention.

In part because of the difficulties the FTC encountered with service in India, on February 11, 2013, the FTC filed a motion to serve the defendants with supplementary documents by e-mail and Facebook.

Under FRCP 4(f), a federal court may approve a method of service on an individual in a foreign country if it is not prohibited by international agreement and comports with constitutional due process. The court found that service by e-mail and Facebook, taken together, satisfy these requirements.

First, the court determined that the Hague Convention did not prohibit the proposed service, and that India had not specifically objected to such methods of service.

Second, the court determined that service by e-mail and Facebook did not violate due process. The court noted that previous decisions in the Southern District of New York had found that service by e-mail alone may, in some instances, comport with due process requirements.

The court noted that the proposed service of process by Facebook was more questionable, and that, standing alone, service by Facebook might not satisfy due process requirements. However, the court permitted the FTC to use Facebook to supplement service by e-mail. The court distinguished this case from a 2012 decision, Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, in which the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected Facebook as a method of service. Unlike the plaintiff in Fortunato, the FTC had shown a degree of certainty that the defendants' Facebook profiles were operated and maintained by the defendants.

Finally, the court found that service by e-mail and Facebook was warranted where, as here, the FTC had made a good faith effort to serve the defendants by other means, such as through the Indian Central Authority.