There are of course ways to avoid sending a HTTP requests to Facebook, but not within the confines of the expectations of web developers where the user is expected and even prodded to use a browser deployed by an advertising company or one that tries to match it feature for feature. These browsers are ideal for serving ads.
You could check for the "Like" button by first retrieving the page from an alternate source, with Javascript disabled, e.g., the Internet Archive.
Even if you retrieve the page from Company A's site, unless you have Javascript enabled and use a browser that automatically loads resources, you can check for the "Like" button poiting to Facebook's servers by inspecting the contents of the page. (Note I have seen some websites host a Facebook "Like" button image on their own servers.) Checking for things in the contents of a page can of course be automated.
But putting technical solutions aside, it is worth reading the 5th Circuit case that suggested Google was a "party" under the Wiretap Act.^1 In that case Google tricked iPhone Safari users into believing third party cookies were being blocked. Meanwhile they disabled third party cookie blocking in Safari by sending a cookie from a hidden form in an iframe.^2 The 5th Cir Court of Appeals noted that using fraud to become a "party" to the communication has no effect on the Wiretap Act exemption. If law enforcement can use deception to become a "party", Google can too.
This is not to suggest Google was innocent of malfeasance. When Google's behaviour was first disclosed by a Stanford grad student in 2012,^2 the WSJ picked up the story.^3 This attracted the attention of the DOJ who filed a complaint. Google ended up paying a $22.5M civil penalty. State AGs also filed a complaint against Google. Google settled for $17M with 38 states. It was only when private lawyers in multiple states attempted to bring a class action suit on behalf of users that the Wiretap Act claims failed.
There are of course ways to avoid sending a HTTP requests to Facebook, but not within the confines of the expectations of web developers where the user is expected and even prodded to use a browser deployed by an advertising company or one that tries to match it feature for feature. These browsers are ideal for serving ads.
You could check for the "Like" button by first retrieving the page from an alternate source, with Javascript disabled, e.g., the Internet Archive.
Even if you retrieve the page from Company A's site, unless you have Javascript enabled and use a browser that automatically loads resources, you can check for the "Like" button poiting to Facebook's servers by inspecting the contents of the page. (Note I have seen some websites host a Facebook "Like" button image on their own servers.) Checking for things in the contents of a page can of course be automated.
But putting technical solutions aside, it is worth reading the 5th Circuit case that suggested Google was a "party" under the Wiretap Act.^1 In that case Google tricked iPhone Safari users into believing third party cookies were being blocked. Meanwhile they disabled third party cookie blocking in Safari by sending a cookie from a hidden form in an iframe.^2 The 5th Cir Court of Appeals noted that using fraud to become a "party" to the communication has no effect on the Wiretap Act exemption. If law enforcement can use deception to become a "party", Google can too.
This is not to suggest Google was innocent of malfeasance. When Google's behaviour was first disclosed by a Stanford grad student in 2012,^2 the WSJ picked up the story.^3 This attracted the attention of the DOJ who filed a complaint. Google ended up paying a $22.5M civil penalty. State AGs also filed a complaint against Google. Google settled for $17M with 38 states. It was only when private lawyers in multiple states attempted to bring a class action suit on behalf of users that the Wiretap Act claims failed.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160126074106/http://www2.ca3.u...
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20120217235344/http://webpolicy....
3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225...