Australian billionaire challenges Meta over scam ads

Australian billionaire and mining executive Andrew Forrest is asking judge to rule that Meta cannot use Section 230 to avoid liability for deceptive Facebook ads that used his image to promote crypto and other financial scams.

The suit says thousands of paid ads have used Forrest’s likeness since 2019 and argues Meta’s ad tools helped optimize, personalize, and distribute the scams, making the company more than a passive host.

Meta said the advertisers, not the company, created the ads and that it took reasonable steps to preserve the relevant data.

A ruling is expected in the coming weeks, as courts also weigh whether platform design can fall outside Section 230 protections.

🔗 Source: Agence France-Presse

🧠 Food for thought

Implications, context, and why it matters.

A U.S. judge found a factual dispute over Meta’s role in creating scam ads

A federal judge said the record leaves a factual dispute over whether Meta’s ad tools did more than host content, which could make Meta a co-creator or developer of fraudulent ads under Section 230 1.
The complaint focuses on tools that optimize ads and can “mix and match” ad parts, plus generative AI tools that can automatically optimize ads 1.
The court said that if those tools help produce the allegedly illegal content, Section 230 may not block the case at the motion-to-dismiss stage, an early step where a judge decides if a lawsuit moves forward 1.
The judge let Forrest’s claims move ahead, including negligence and misappropriation, meaning alleged unauthorized use of his name or image for commercial purposes 1.

This lawsuit is part of a broader effort to narrow Section 230 defenses

The case uses a strategy that tries to sidestep Section 230 by targeting the platform’s own products and systems, rather than treating the platform as only publishing third-party posts 2.
A similar playbook worked in a recent verdict that held Meta and Google liable for intentionally building addictive platforms, using platform design to support negligence and product-liability-style claims 2.
Other plaintiffs now cite the Forrest ruling in cases over allegedly fraudulent ads tied to Meta’s ad-creation and optimization tools, including Bouck v. Meta Platforms, Inc., a stock-scam case discussed by Reason/Volokh Conspiracy, a legal commentary site 3.
If plaintiffs win on this approach, platforms could face more legal risk for ads their systems help build or tune, and one commentator warned the allegations could lead to “potentially ruinous liability” for third-party ads 1.