Privacy advocates welcomed the company's decision to shutter Beacon. But earlier this year, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, of Washington D.C, and some Facebook users asked the court to reject the offer.

In their complaint, the groups said that the proposed settlement did nothing to compensate victims whose privacy may have been compromised by Beacon. Other than formally disbanding a program that Facebook had voluntarily already discontinued, the settlement offered little else the groups complained.

They also argued that the settlement would give Facebook a direct role in drafting the mission and bylaws of the proposed foundation and in appointing board members. The complaint noted that one of the three initial directors of the foundation would in fact be a Facebook employee and chief lobbyist.

Facebook, meanwhile, claimed that the opposition to its settlement offer stemmed from a . The company insisted that the proposed privacy foundation would be an independent entity run by three well known and respected privacy advocates.

In his ruling, Judge Seeborg expressed similar sentiments. Those objecting to the proposed settlement had not shown "any substantial reason to doubt the independence of two of the three directors," he wrote. It is reasonable to expect that the Facebook director would be opposed to any actions taken by the privacy foundation that would directly harm Facebook, the judge said.