Andrew Forrest accuses Facebook of ‘blatantly refusing’ to take action against scam ads
The Australian billionaire and philanthropist Andrew Forrest has accused Facebook’s parent company of “blatantly refusing” to take action against scam ads on its platform, as a criminal case he brought against Meta in WA was discontinued.
On Friday, the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions filed a discontinuance motion due to insufficient evidence in the criminal case brought by Forrest in the Western Australia district court over scam cryptocurrency ads bearing his likeness on Facebook.
Forrest said it was a tragedy for the innocent victims of the adverts who had lost their life savings.
“It shows that Facebook is beyond the laws of Australia, that hardworking Australians are not protected, and that scams will continue to run rampant with no recourse for those who are duped by increasingly sophisticated technology on social media platforms that take no responsibility,” he said.
Forrest said he would continue his battle and campaign for urgent law reform so action can be taken against foreign-owned social media platforms, such as Facebook.
“Politicians must take responsibility on behalf of ordinary mums and dads,” he said.
In a video provided to Guardian Australia before the hearing, Forrest said the scam ads bearing his image that have appeared on Facebook over the past five years had cost Australian retirees and pensioners all their savings.
“Facebook do nothing about this fraudulent advertising that is so hurting the innocent,” he said.
“I’m asking the courts of California and I will ask courts of Australia to fix this illegal or improper content rapidly,” he said. “We know it can be done, the law … might have to be fixed, and Facebook needs to know that they’re accountable like all the rest of us to the law.”
Forrest has been fighting the latest battle over the controversial section 230 law in the US, which protects internet companies such as Meta from taking responsibility for content posted on their services. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents providers of interactive computer services from being liable for defamatory or unlawful messages.
Forrest called this law “well-meaning”, but from the “dark ages” of 1996 before digital platforms existed.
“[It] actually gives full immunity for content published on any of the tech companies’ platforms, designed, of course to help the internet. But it doesn’t – it overwrites democracy all over the world,” he said.
“This law means that these tech companies can publish the actions of criminals on their platform because they’re getting money for it.”
The district court in northern California heard a motion by Meta to dismiss Forrest’s case on Thursday. The court’s decision was expected in the coming weeks.
Forrest launched the civil proceedings in 2022 alleging the company’s failure to stop cryptocurrency-related scam ads bearing his image was “negligent” and a “misappropriation of likeness”.
In his most recent filing in March, Forrest said Meta had promised to work with him to stop the ads, but they continue to run. He said between April and November 2023 more than 1,000 ads bearing his likeness ran on Meta platforms, which he said Meta did not dispute.
The filing said Meta was “scarcely” bothering to defend the case, instead relying on section 230.
Forrest said in the filing that Meta sought to argue this provision in US law grants total immunity for fraudulent ads running on Meta platforms anywhere in the world, including Australia.
“Section 230, however, was never intended to serve as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for for-profit advertisers like Meta Ads, let alone to immunise such advertisers for conduct that occurs entirely overseas,” the filing stated.
Meta argued that section 230 applies because the case was brought by Forrest in a US court seeking relief in the US.
Forrest pointed out a consistent legal argument Meta runs in cases outside the US in which they argue cases cannot be brought against it because it has no presence in those countries, including in Australia. However, Meta argued in response that Forrest had in fact brought the criminal case against Meta in Western Australia.
Meta had conceded in 2022 that the court had jurisdiction in that case.
Forrest said he was serious to do “whatever small part” he can to protect people from being exploited.
Related: Three richest Australians’ combined wealth doubles since 2020 at $1.5m an hour – Oxfam
“I call on all social media companies to use your vast resources to not just make yourself bigger and richer and wider and fatter, but to protect vulnerable people from your platform being used by criminal syndicates.”
A spokesperson for Meta told Guardian Australia last week scams were a challenge across the internet, not just social media.
“Meta adopts a multi-faceted approach to tackle scams. We use both technology, such as new machine learning techniques, and specially trained reviewers to identify and action content and accounts that violate our policies,” the spokesperson said.
“In the final quarter of 2023, we removed 691m fake accounts globally. We also invest in tools on our services that allow people to report scams and to warn people if they are contacted by someone they don’t know.”
The US civil case is one of several to challenge section 230 in recent years. The US supreme court last month heard one of two cases focused on section 230 – with Meta one of the companies challenging state laws preventing them from moderating certain content or banning users.
The supreme court upheld existing exemptions in two cases in May last year against Google and X/Twitter. There is also pressure from some in congress on both sides of the aisle to reform section 230, particularly given the protections it offers to the platforms over harm to children.
