Key Moments
- A German court ruled Meta is liable for fake investment ads on Instagram and Facebook that misused a German financial portal’s logo and founder’s image.
- The court found Meta could not invoke the Digital Services Act’s lack-of-knowledge defense due to its algorithmic control and advertising practices.
- Meta was ordered to remove the infringing content, disclose details and related revenue, and pay damages, though the ruling is not yet final.
Court Finds Meta Responsible for Third-Party Fraudulent Ads
A German court ruled that Meta is legally responsible for fraudulent advertisements placed by third parties on its Instagram and Facebook platforms. In its decision, the court ordered the U.S.-based company to take down such content and pay damages.
The case was initiated by the operator of a German financial portal and the portal’s founder. Their trademarked logo and personal image were allegedly used without authorization in posts that promoted investments with purported fraudulent intent.
Alleged Violations and Meta’s Response Timeline
According to the court, the financial portal’s operator reported nearly 260 violations to Meta in August 2024 alone. The ruling stated that in some instances, it took Meta as long as 62 days to remove specific pieces of offending content.
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Number of reported violations | Nearly 260 in August 2024 |
| Maximum removal time cited | Up to 62 days for some content |
| Obligations imposed on Meta | Remove fake ads, pay damages, disclose ad details and related revenue |
Digital Services Act Defense Rejected
The court held that Meta could not rely on the lack-of-knowledge defense under the Digital Services Act. It reasoned that, in contrast to a purely chronological feed, Meta exerts influence over what users see through its algorithms and advertising systems, which in the court’s view creates a different level of responsibility.
The decision referenced a June ruling by the European Court of Justice as a precedent, according to the court’s statement.
Meta’s Reaction and Disclosure Requirements
A Meta spokesperson responded to the ruling, stating: “We respectfully disagree with this decision and are considering next steps,” and added that the company had taken significant action, including proactive detection measures and removal of reported content.
The ruling, dated September 16, further requires Meta to provide information about the fake advertisements at issue and to reveal the revenue it generated from them.
Appeal Still Possible
The court indicated that the decision is not yet final. It may still be contested if an appeal is lodged.
TradingPedia.com is a financial media specialized in providing daily news and education covering Forex, equities and commodities. Our academies for traders cover 
