• by Wendy Davis , 9 hours ago

Meta Platforms has asked a federal judge to authorize an immediate appeal of his recent decision allowing Facebook users to proceed with key claims in a lawsuit over scam ads.

"Securing appellate clarity sooner rather than later is ... in the interest of all concerned," the company argues in papers filed Tuesday with U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California.

Meta adds that an immediate appeal is "far superior to the alternative -- deferring appeal of this central issue until after final judgment, which could render years of work by the court and parties wasted."

The company's motion comes in a lawsuit brought in 2021 by Facebook users including Oregon resident Christopher Calise. He alleged in a class-action complaint that he lost around $49 after attempting to purchase a car-engine assembly kit that was advertised on the site.

The complaint included allegations that Meta promised in its terms of service to "take appropriate action" regarding harmful content, and also said in a "community standards" section that it would remove fraudulent content.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California ruled that those allegations, if found to be true, could support claims the company broke its contract with users and violated its duty of good faith.

"The specific provisions which plaintiffs claim Meta violated are unambiguous and well-defined promises from Meta to users," White wrote.

Meta argues in its new motion that the 9th Circuit should decide whether the platform's terms of service and "community standards" create a "legally enforceable obligation to combat purported scam advertisements."

The company adds that a ruling in its favor by the 9th Circuit would immediately end the lawsuit.

"Given the significance of this issue, the Ninth Circuit’s review is inevitable," Meta writes. "The only question is when appellate review will occur -- now (when definitive guidance from the Ninth Circuit could spare the court and parties extensive efforts) or after final judgment (when the costs of those efforts are sunk)."

Earlier in the proceedings, White dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected Meta from liability for ads placed by third parties.

That law broadly protects web companies from lawsuits over posts by outside individuals and companies. Calise appealed to the 9th Circuit, which ruled Section 230 didn't protect Meta from claims that the company broke its contract with users by allegedly violating its terms of service.