• by Wendy Davis , December 26, 2025

Meta Platforms is pressing a federal judge to authorize a fast appeal of his recent decision allowing Facebook users to proceed with key claims in a lawsuit over scam ads.

In papers filed December 23, the company argues that an immediate appeal is appropriate because the central dispute -- whether a tech platform is liable for ads placed by outside companies -- has "profound implications" for websites.

"The fundamental question in this case is whether Meta can be held liable for allegedly fraudulent third-party ads on Facebook," the company argues in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California.

"Given that there are hundreds of millions of Facebook users in the United States -- and literally billions of pieces of content posted to the site every day -- the answer to that question will have profound implications, and not just for Facebook," the platform adds.

The new motion comes in battle dating to 2021, when Facebook users including an Oregon resident named Christopher Calise alleged in a class-action complaint that they lost money after responding to scam ads. Calise specifically alleged 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. Meta allegedly promised in its terms of service to "take appropriate action" regarding harmful content, and allegedly said in the 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 the allegations in the complaint, if true, could support claims the company broke its contract with users and violated its duty of good faith.

Meta then asked White to authorize an immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that appellate judges should decide whether terms of service and "community standards" create a "legally enforceable obligation to combat purported scam advertisements."

The tech group NetChoice backs that request, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief that an appellate court should decide the key issue in the dispute -- whether "aspirational" statements in companies' terms of service give users grounds to sue.

Calise and other users opposed an immediate appeal, arguing in papers filed earlier this month that their claims involve factual questions that should be resolved by a trial court -- as opposed to the type of "abstract legal issue that an appellate court could decide quickly without delving into the particular facts of the case."

White is expected to hold a hearing in the matter on January 9.