A Lawrence County judge has ordered Meta to hand over the identity behind a Facebook account called Frank Durk, giving District Attorney Joshua Lamancusa a long-sought path to unmask the person he says spent months accusing him of crimes online. The account must first be served with the order, and the person behind it gets 30 days to appeal before Meta is required to disclose who they are.
Lamancusa obtained the order after months of legal wrangling, according to New Castle News. The district attorney filed a civil court action in July seeking to reveal the Facebook account holder's identity, then filed a writ of summons against the Facebook and/or Meta Platforms Inc. account created under the Frank Durk name. He claims the posts were libelous and defamatory and damaged his reputation.
According to the newspaper's reporting, Lamancusa alleged the public posts accused him of criminal activity, including insider trading, misconduct, financial gain from office, improper real-estate transactions, denying police funding, and breaking the law. He sought the account holder's true identity so he could pursue the proper defendant in court.
A Denial, Then a Reversal
Judge Lawrence Keith initially denied Lamancusa’s request, prompting the district attorney to file a subsequent motion on Aug. 13 seeking reconsideration of that denial. Keith then scheduled a hearing on the motion.
That hearing took place Oct. 28 in Lawrence County, with Keith presiding. Neither Meta Platforms Inc. nor Frank Durk was represented at the hearing; the judge had correspondence identifying attorney John Roche as Meta's attorney. Keith ultimately did just that, issuing an order on Nov. 3 that requires Meta to furnish identity and contact information for the subscriber known as Frank Durk.
What the Order Requires
The judge limited the disclosure to the subscriber's identity and contact information, rather than broader account content. Weith ordered Lamancusa to email a copy of the order to Meta's counsel for processing and service, and directed Meta to serve a copy of the order on Frank Durk directly. The company must then inform the court and Lamancusa immediately after that service happens.
From there, Durk has 30 days after service to appeal the order, and Meta must wait 30 days after serving Durk before disclosing the account holder's identity. If no appeal is filed within that period, Meta must provide Durk's identity to Lamancusa.
Lamancusa told the judge there were 100 to 150 Facebook posts accusing him of wrongdoing, and said all of those posts have since been taken down. He is seeking discovery from social-media platforms and internet service providers to identify the proper defendant, since the person responsible for the statements remained unknown behind an anonymous account or fictitious name. He has also sought subpoenas to Facebook and Meta, internet service providers identified by the platform, associated email and telephone providers, and other third parties holding identifying information, arguing those platforms maintain records such as registration information, IP logs, login history, associated email addresses and phone numbers, account creation data, and ownership information that could identify who is behind the account.
The Legal Bar for Unmasking Anonymous Speech
Lamancusa filed the underlying action for defamation and injunctive relief, and presented an affidavit of good faith describing the move as necessary to defend his name and reputation. Pennsylvania appellate authority sets a notably high bar for this kind of disclosure. The state's Superior Court has described a four-part test, sometimes called the Pilchesky standard, requiring notice and a chance for the anonymous speaker to contest disclosure, evidence sufficient to support a prima facie defamation claim, an affidavit addressing good faith and necessity, and a balancing of the speaker's First Amendment rights against the strength of the plaintiff's case, according to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. A separate case involved anonymous letters sent to government agencies under a pseudonym.
Pennsylvania's defamation statute spells out who carries the burden of proof once a case like this reaches that stage. Under state law, a plaintiff must prove the defamatory character of the communication and its publication by the defendant, while the defendant can defend by proving the truth of the statement or that it was made on a privileged occasion, per the Pennsylvania General Assembly's statute. A similar dispute playing out years earlier, Gatelli v. Does, saw a Pennsylvania court order the unmasking of six anonymous message-board posters while shielding the identities of others on the same board, according to the Digital Media Law Project; that case turned on six statements alleging serious sexual misconduct that were found to support a cognizable defamation claim.
For now, the identity of whoever runs the Frank Durk account remains unknown, and whether Meta or the account holder will appeal Keith's order remains uncertain. The 30-day periods set by the Nov. 3 order mean the next concrete step in the case is service on Durk himself, a step that sets the rest of the timeline in motion.
