Late last year, we reported on a $20 million class-action lawsuit covering people who were unwittingly featured in Facebook “Sponsored Stories” advertisements. User photos were used to endorse products they had "liked" without their permission and often without their knowledge. Worse still, there was no opt-out.

A San Francisco federal judge granted preliminary settlement approval for the case in December 2012. Late Monday evening, the same judge approved a final settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Facebook, granting each person who actually bothered to file a claim a monetary award of $15.

“The record leaves no doubt that this settlement was the product of arms-length negotiations and compromise,” Judge Richard Seeborg wrote (PDF) in the final order.

“Although the monetary relief to each class member is relatively small and the percentage of class members who submitted claims is limited, the settlement as a whole provides fair, reasonable, and adequate relief to the class, in light of all the circumstances, including the low probability that a substantially better result would be obtained through continued litigation, Seeborg wrote. "The injunctive relief, while not incorporating all features that some of the objectors might prefer, has significant value and provides benefits that likely could not be obtained outside the context of a negotiated settlement, even if plaintiffs were to prevail on the merits.”

Facebook also agreed to “provide greater disclosure and transparency” about how its members’ names and images are used. The judge noted that this entire issue would be moot if Facebook were to switch from an opt-in to an opt-out system, but he acknowledged that by no means is the company obligated to do so.

“As Facebook points out, however, it is a platform for sharing information, which members join voluntarily,” Seeborg added. “Members are not charged any fees for Facebook’s services, which cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars to provide. While it does not follow that Facebook has carte blanche to exploit material belonging to, or regarding, its members in any fashion whatsoever, neither is it foreclosed from adopting [Statement of Rights and Responsibilities] that are not as ‘pro-member’ or ‘pro-privacy’ as some might like.”