Australian mining tycoon Andrew Forrest has filed a case in a US federal court in Silicon Valley, seeking to hold Meta responsible for scam advertisements that allegedly used his likeness without authorization.
His legal team is urging the court to determine that Meta cannot rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that generally protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content. The lawyers argue that this immunity should not extend to Meta’s advertising business.
Forrest’s attorney, Simon Clarke stated that this is the first case challenging whether Facebook should benefit from such protection in relation to its ad operations. He added that a ruling in California could set an important legal precedent.
A recent hearing examined claims that Meta may have improperly discarded evidence, which could impact its ability to invoke Section 230 protection. The court is expected to decide on Forrest’s motion in the coming weeks.
Meta has denied the allegations, saying the fraudulent ads were created by third parties and not by the company itself. It further claims it made reasonable efforts to preserve relevant data and continues to rely on Section 230 in its defense.
Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a separate case involving allegations that their platform design contributed to harm suffered by a young woman, focusing on product design rather than content alone.
Forrest’s lawyers are pursuing a similar legal argument, alleging that Meta’s advertising tools and systems actively contributed to the creation and distribution of deceptive financial ads. The lawsuit claims that since 2019, thousands of fraudulent ads have used Forrest’s identity to promote fake cryptocurrency and investment scams, resulting in significant financial losses.
The complaint also argues that Meta’s artificial intelligence systems helped optimize and target these scam advertisements, making the company an active participant rather than a passive platform.
In a separate development, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that Section 230 does not shield Meta in a case involving claims that Instagram’s design is addictive to children.
