Australian tycoon battles Meta over fake ads

Forrest's legal team is asking a judge to rule that the social media colossus cannot hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that spares internet firms from being accountable for content posted by users on its platform.

"This is the first case brought in any court, but in particular in California where a verdict can resonate that says Facebook was never intended to get the benefit of this immunity for their advertising business," the billionaire's attorney Simon Clarke told AFP.

A hearing Thursday focused on whether Meta wrongly ditched evidence, forfeiting its ability to take shelter behind Section 230, according to Clarke.

The judge is expected to rule on Forrest's motion in the coming weeks.

Meta has countered that the offending marketing messages were not its doing, and that it made reasonable efforts to preserve the desired data.

The social media giant is also standing behind Section 230 when it comes to being held to account for what the advertisers posted.

Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young woman because of an addictive design of their social media platformsm rather than just their content.

The jury concluded that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, focusing on their business models rather than content.

Forrest's attorneys are using a similar legal tactic to navigate around Section 230, accusing Meta's ad business and its tools with being complicit in the creation and distribution of the bogus marketing messages, according to Clarke.

Forrest "has been plagued for years by paid ads and sponsored content produced by Meta Ads and run on Meta's Australian social media platforms, in which he falsely appears to be promoting fake cryptocurrency and other fraudulent financial schemes," the complaint filed in US District Court argues.

Since 2019, thousands of deceptive advertisements on Facebook have used the likeness of the highly prominent figure in Australia to promote scams, racking up thousands of victims, according to the suit.

The billionaire's legal team argues that Meta's artificial intelligence tools optimized and personalized fraudulent ads before distributing them, thereby making Meta an active participant, rather than a mere intermediary.

Early this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Section 230 does not protect Meta from the state's lawsuit concerning Instagram's design being addictive to children.