• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, February 21, 2025

Meta Platforms is urging a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit by two Facebook users who say they lost money after responding to fraudulent ads on the platform.

The users, Oregon resident Christopher Calise and Nebraska resident Anastasia Groschen, claim in a class-action complaint that Meta violated its terms of service by allegedly failing to remove deceptive ads that were placed by outside companies.

Their complaint includes allegations that Meta represents in the terms of service that it develops systems to detect fraud, and that it removes content that “purposefully deceives, willfully misrepresents or otherwise defrauds or exploits others for money or property.”

Meta counters in a motion filed this week that its terms of service impose rules on users, but don't create “affirmative obligations” on the company itself.

The social platform also argues the terms of service warn that the company will take action when it discovers fraud, but don't promise to completely eliminate scam ads.

“Plaintiffs are trying to enforce an obligation that Meta never assumed and that, in any event, Meta did not violate,” the company writes in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland, California.

The decision stems from a lawsuit first brought by Calise and Groschen in 2021, when they accused the company of soliciting fraudulent ads from advertisers based in China. Calise alleged that he lost around $49 after attempting to purchase a car-engine assembly kit that was advertised on the site, and Groschen said she lost around $31 after attempting to purchase an advertised activity board for her toddler.

They raised several claims, including that Meta was negligent, and that the company broke its contract with users.

White initially dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Meta Platforms from liability over ads created by outside companies. That law broadly protects web companies from lawsuits over posts by third parties.

Calise and Groschen appealed to the 9th Circuit, which said Section 230 protected Meta from some claims, but not from claims that the company broke its contract with users by allegedly violating its own terms of service. The appellate judges noted, however, that it wasn't clear whether the terms of service created an enforceable contract, adding that a trial judge should decide that question.

Attorneys for Calise and Groschen are expected to respond to Meta's motion by April 21.