Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Scam Facebook Ads on Crypto

• Judge Casey Pitts has allowed Andrew Forrest’s lawsuit against Meta regarding scam Facebook ads to proceed, rejecting Meta’s request for dismissal.

• Over 1,000 scam ads appeared between April and November 2023, resulting in millions of dollars in losses for victims.

• Forrest is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, emphasizing the need for transparency and protection against fraudulent investments on social media platforms.

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts in San Jose, California, has rejected Meta Platforms’ attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest.

The lawsuit centres around scam Facebook ads falsely portraying Forrest as promoting fake cryptocurrency and other fraudulent investments.

This decision allows Forrest to pursue claims that Meta’s negligence in permitting these ads breached its duty to operate commercially reasonably.

Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Scam Facebook Ads on Crypto

According to Andrew Forrest, Australia’s second-richest individual, his name and likeness were misappropriated not only by the scammers behind the bogus ads but also by Meta. Forrest claims that Meta profited more from these scam Facebook ads featuring his likeness than it would have from other advertisements. Judge Pitts agreed that this argument is sufficient to plead that the alleged misappropriation was to Meta’s advantage.

Meta’s lawyers declined to comment on the ruling. The Palo Alto, California-based company had argued that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act immunized it from liability as a publisher of third-party content.

However, Judge Pitts noted that Forrest’s claims present a factual dispute regarding whether Meta’s ad systems were neutral tools or if the tools themselves contributed to the content of the ads.

Impact and Implications of the Fraudulent Ads

Forrest stated that over 1,000 scam Facebook ads appeared in Australia between April and November 2023, leading to millions of dollars in losses for victims. According to Forbes magazine, as the executive chairman of iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, Forrest, along with his family, holds a net worth of $16.5 billion (AUD$24.8 billion).

In his statement, Forrest highlighted that Judge Pitts’ decision marks the first instance where a social media company could not invoke Section 230 immunity in a U.S. civil case related to its advertising business. He described the ruling as a crucial strategic victory to hold Facebook accountable for scam ads and their impact on users.

ALSO, READ: ATO’s New Crypto Tax Guidance Faces Criticism, Deemed Confusing by Legal Firm

Broader Legal Context and Forrest’s Pursuit of Justice

Forrest is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages through his lawsuit. The fraudulent investments promoted by these ads have significantly harmed many individuals, emphasizing the need for accountability in Meta’s ad systems.

Forrest’s lawsuit underscores the growing concerns about the proliferation of fake crypto ads on social media platforms and the responsibility of companies like Meta to protect their users from such scams.

In April, Australian prosecutors declined to pursue criminal charges that Forrest had brought against Meta in Australia over the same scam Facebook crypto ads.

Under Australian law, individuals can criminally prosecute foreign companies with the consent of prosecutors. Despite this setback, Forrest’s U.S. lawsuit represents a continued effort to seek justice and enforce accountability.

The case, Forrest v Facebook Inc. et al., is being heard in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-03699. This lawsuit could set a precedent for future cases involving social media companies and their responsibility for the content and impact of their advertising systems.

ALSO, READ: Thailand Strengthens Digital Asset Regulation Through Collaborative Efforts.

Conclusion: A Landmark Case in Digital Advertising Accountability

This legal battle between Andrew Forrest and Meta Platforms highlights critical issues surrounding scam Facebook ads and fraudulent investments promoted through social media.

The case raises important questions about the role of Meta ad systems in facilitating these scams and the extent of Meta’s responsibility in preventing such fraudulent activities. As the lawsuit progresses, it will be closely watched by legal experts, social media companies, and users concerned about the integrity and safety of online advertising.

Forrest’s persistence in seeking justice reflects the broader need for regulatory frameworks that hold social media platforms accountable for the content they host and promote.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how Meta Platforms and other social media giants manage and regulate advertisements, especially those related to financial investments and cryptocurrencies.

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
• Source: https://web3africa.news/2024/06/25/news/scam-facebook-ads-meta-lawsuit/