“The Communications Decency Act was not meant to create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet.”

– Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157  at 1164 (9th Cir. 2008)

---

Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Overview

Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) is a 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals case that has reached a pivotal stage of holding Meta to account for its complicity in fraud. The Plaintiffs, like thousands on Facebook (including authors!), were scammed by unscrupulous advertisers on Facebook. While these specific defendants were not specifically scammed by Publishing Predators, the court reached a conclusion to hold Meta contractually responsible. This decision is a beacon of hope for aspiring authors (many of them elderly) who have been hoodwinked by Meta-supported scammers.

Meta is now at a crucial turning point in the proceedings, indicating that accountability is now at the forefront. Finally !  While Meta was able to achieve dismissal of a number of Plaintiffs’ allegations by invoking the broad immunity afforded under the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), it could not avoid liability that it created under  common contract law.

Because Meta violated its own Terms of Service (TOS), “Community Standards,” after promising and then failing to regulate its platforms, it must now face the consequences for having done so.

The court in the Calise case aptly noted:

“The ability to exploit Meta users has, in the words of scammers themselves, ‘revolutionized scamming.’  Meta purports to curtail false or deceptive advertising on its platform.” Meta users agree to Meta’s Terms of Service (TOS), in which Meta promises to “[c]ombat harmful conduct.” This includes removing any “content that purposefully deceives, willfully misrepresents, or otherwise defrauds or exploits others for money or property.” Meta’s advertising policies also prohibit ads that are deceptive or misleading.

Significance

This moment marks the transition from previous arguments and deliberations to the phase where Meta Platforms, Inc. must address the contract claims brought forth by the plaintiffs. The expectation is that the necessary actions or reparations will soon follow, underscoring the importance of responsibility and resolution.

For almost two  years, Angela and myself (independently) and her WritersWeekly.com team (who have been exposing scams on the Internet for 27 years), have wrestled with how to hold Meta accountable for the pervasive fraud that has flooded its platforms – Facebook and Instagram.  Obviously, our focus has been on self-publishing fraud but there are thousands of ads on Facebook offering all kinds of fake products and services. Meta has been knowingly pocketing profits at the expense of scam victims on its platforms.

While we initially caught the attention of Meta’s Chief Legal Officer, Jennifer Newstead, and their Legal Investigations Team, and sent them the information they requested, they then immediately ghosted us. We were stunned! For almost two years, we have sent numerous (hundreds!) of emails with proof of fraudulent companies on Facebook, including details and screenshots. It was clear to us (and others reporting fraud on Facebook and Instagram) that Meta was more interested in making a buck than they were in protecting their users from getting scammed. After all, their users pay them nothing. Scammers pay for ads. It all makes sense, right?

Facebook KNOWS they are profiting from foreign scam organizations that have flooded its platforms but they have done nothing more than pretend to stop it. Even when the ads and pages are reported to Facebook, they almost always categorically refuse to remove them.

Our pleas for help to eradicate fraud on Meta’s Platforms quickly fell on purposely-deaf ears.  Meta’s promises, “Community Standards,” and Terms of Service were meaningless. Their goal was not to protect their users (again, many of them elderly U.S. citizens!) but, instead, to acquire as much ad revenue, and at any cost. Likewise,  the FBI, Consumer Protection Agencies, legislators, and Associated Press (who interviewed me, Angela, and scam victims) turned a blind eye.

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]

Takeaway

One of two things is going to happen. Meta Platforms, Inc. will either live up to its lofty terms of service that it has routinely ignored for years, or the Federal Attorney General’s office and various State Attorneys General will bear down on Meta’s broken platforms.  Given the carelessness and indifference of Meta, it’s likely to be the latter.

In my estimation, Meta should be nothing short of publicly castigated for its deliberate, long running mendacity.

RELATED

• FACEBOOK’S FRAUD FIASCO: How Facebook is Profiting From Scam Publishers Targeting YOU on Its Platform – by James M. Walsh, Esq.
• WHEN WILL IT STOP?! Meta (the owner of Facebook and Instagram) Now Accused of Profiting from Human Trafficking! – by James M. Walsh, Esq.
• FRAUD ALERT: Why 5-Star Reviews on Trustpilot Can NOT Be Trusted – by James M. Walsh, Esq.
• “Celebrity Author” Impersonators Are Fooling Unwary (Real!) Author
• Fraudulent “Recovery Firms” and “Law Firms” Are Scamming Previously Scammed Authors By James M. Walsh, Esq.
• Why Some Authors Forget Their Common Sense in the Drive to Get Published – by James M. Walsh, Esq.

JAMES M. WALSH, ESQ. is a former Navy JAGC officer and a recipient of the American Bar Association’s coveted LAMP Award for excellence in military legal assistance practice. A rolling stone, J.M. has globetrotted most of his adult life. After the military, J.M. pursued commercial real estate development, leasing, and asset management. He resides in Catania, Sicily. He spent almost twenty years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne, Erie & Lackawanna Counties. His handiwork as an editor and author is interspersed throughout this novel. Leo A. Murray fondly refers to J.M. as his collaborative, literary ‘Coach’ or ‘Lieutenant.’ Agnes claims that he has gypsy in his heart and rabbit in his feet.

James’ thriller, Maximum Impact, written with co-author Leo Murray, was published by Abuzz Press.

HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SELF-PUBLISHING A BOOK?

Angela is not only the publisher of WritersWeekly.com. She is President & CEO of BookLocker.com,
a self-publishing services company that has been in business since 1998. Ask her anything.

ASK ANGELA!