Meta is arguing in court that it should not be held liable for a scam involving the misuse of financial professionals’ identities to promote fraudulent investment schemes. The company’s attorney, Sonal Mehta, claims that under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Meta is not responsible for third-party content created by scammers who impersonated these professionals. The plaintiffs allege that their likenesses were used in ads created with Meta’s tools, while Meta counters that the content of the impersonation occurred within WhatsApp chats, not in the ads themselves.
The judge, U.S. Chief District Court Judge Richard Seeborg, showed concern about the connection between Meta’s involvement in the ads and the impersonation claims. He referenced a prior case, Bouck v. Meta, where he ruled against Meta due to its involvement in similar fraudulent activities.
The plaintiffs have also raised the issue of unfair competition, arguing that Meta failed to act on its promise to remove impersonation content, but Meta claims there are no explicit promises to take down such content given the volume they handle.
The judge has not yet indicated when a ruling will be released regarding the motion to dismiss.
