• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Meta Platforms users who are suing over scam ads on Facebook are urging a federal judge to reject the tech company's latest bid to send the dispute to an appellate court.

In court papers filed Tuesday, the Facebook users argue that their claims center on factual questions that should be resolved by a trial court -- as opposed to an "abstract legal issue that an appellate court could decide quickly without delving into the particular facts of the case."

The new motion comes in a lawsuit brought in 2021 by Oregon resident Christopher Calise and others. Calise alleged in a class-action complaint that he was bilked out of around $49 after attempting to purchase a car-engine assembly kit that was advertised on Facebook.

The complaint included claims that Meta failed to live up to statements in its terms of service and community standards section. Specifically, Calise alleged that Meta promised in its terms of service to "take appropriate action" regarding harmful content, and said in the community standards section that it would remove fraudulent content.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California ruled in September that those allegations, if proven true, could support claims that Meta 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 at the time.

Last month, Meta asked White to authorize an immediate appeal of that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The company argued that a fast appellate ruling would be "in the interest of all concerned."

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 argued.

Calise and the others counter that appellate intervention before trial is only appropriate when the dispute centers on "abstract" questions. The dispute with Meta, they argue, is too fact-bound to meet that standard.

They also say Meta waited too long to seek authorization for an appeal, arguing that the 50-day lag between White's order and Meta's application shows that the company "did not consider immediate appellate review essential to the efficient progression of the litigation."