Is Meta on the Brink of a Massive Legal Crackdown Over Scam Ads?
Until this point, Meta’s conduct has received a pass. NOT ANYMORE!
Meta Breached Its Promise to Moderate Third-Party Advertisements
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, while at times esoteric, didn’t mince words when it came to its observations of Meta’s egregious conduct. Simply put, Meta was in it for revenue – billions annually!
The Court, following Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) stated:
“Thus, Meta’s “[c]ontract liability” would “come not from [its] publishing conduct, but from [its] manifest intention to be legally obligated to do something.” Id. This is because “[c]ontract law treats the outwardly manifested intention to create an expectation on the part of another as a legally significant event.” Id. “That event generates a legal duty distinct from the conduct at hand.” Id. To the extent that Meta manifested its intent to be legally obligated to “take appropriate action” to combat scam advertisements, it became bound by a contractual duty separate from its status as a publisher. We thus hold that Meta’s duty arising from its promise to moderate third-party advertisements is unrelated to Meta’s publisher status, and § 230(c)(1) does not apply to Plaintiffs’ contract claims.” [Emphasis Added]
Post Comment