• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

A federal judge has authorized an immediate appeal of his recent decision allowing Facebook users to move forward with a lawsuit over scam ads.

In a ruling issued Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California said a fast appeal was warranted due to "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on the key question in the dispute -- whether Meta's terms of service require it to combat fraudulent ads.

White added that other judges in the Northern District of California have approached that question differently.

The ruling allows Meta to ask the 9th Circuit to hear the dispute, but doesn't guarantee that the appellate court will intervene.

White's move comes in a battle dating to 2021, when an Oregon resident named Christopher Calise alleged in a class-action complaint that he lost money after responding to a scam ad on Facebook. Specifically, he allegedly 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, White 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 whether "aspirational" statements in companies' terms of service give users grounds to sue.

Calise and other users opposed an immediate appeal, arguing 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 said in his ruling that a ruling by an appellate court "will materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation."

He added, "An appellate decision on the threshold issues will allow the parties to be more informed in their assessment of whether they might prevail, it would render some claims moot and would facilitate settlement discussions."