AI advertising tools fuel scams! Meta is ordered not to be exempt from liability and may face securities fraud charges

The U.S. court rules that Meta cannot invoke Section 230 immunity. The court believes that its AI advertising tools actively optimize scam content placement, losing their status as neutral platforms.

U.S. Court Rules Meta Cannot Invoke Section 230 Immunity

According to Bloomberg reports, a recent federal court ruling in the United States made an important decision regarding a cryptocurrency scam case, stating that Meta’s Facebook and Instagram AI advertising tools may have exceeded the protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The court pointed out that if platforms actively assist in ad optimization, target audience recommendation, and content delivery through AI systems, their role may involve promoting fraudulent content, and thus they cannot be considered neutral platforms.

This case originated from a class-action lawsuit filed by multiple investors against Meta. The plaintiffs allege that, scam groups used Facebook and Instagram’s AI advertising systems to spread大量 false cryptocurrency investment information and high-return guarantees, leading investors to suffer significant losses. The court believes that the content presented by the plaintiffs is sufficient to reasonably suggest that Meta may play an active role in ad delivery and recommendation mechanisms, and therefore rejected Meta’s motion to dismiss some of the charges.

AI Advertising Recommendation Mechanisms at the Heart of the Dispute

According to the lawsuit documents, some scam ads directly impersonate well-known entrepreneurs, financial celebrities, and investment platforms, claiming to offer “guaranteed profits,” “AI automated trading,” and “stable high returns” schemes.

The plaintiffs point out that Meta’s AI system automatically searches for the most likely audiences to click on ads based on user age, interests, search history, and interaction behaviors, while continuously optimizing ad conversion rates, enabling scam content to spread rapidly.

The court also specifically mentioned that when platforms use AI to actively assist advertisers in increasing reach and delivery effectiveness, their role differs from traditional forums or message boards. The plaintiffs further argue that Meta earns大量 revenue from related ads, and its AI algorithms further amplify the dissemination efficiency of scam content.

Securities Fraud and Platform Responsibility Come to the Forefront

Aside from the issue of scam facilitation, another focus of the case is whether Meta could face securities fraud-related liabilities. Some plaintiffs believe that certain ads involve unregistered investment products and cryptocurrency investment schemes, and that Meta knowingly continued to provide delivery and promotion services despite being aware of the high risks involved.

Legal experts point out that if the court later determines that Meta’s AI advertising system involved “knowingly or with gross negligence,” it could have a profound impact on the entire tech platform industry. For years, American tech companies have heavily relied on Section 230 as a legal shield to avoid responsibility for platform content. However, as AI recommendation systems become increasingly proactive in content ranking and commercialization processes, U.S. courts have begun to re-examine platform roles in recent years.

The market generally believes that the development of this case could influence future AI advertising and content recommendation models on platforms like Google, TikTok, X, and other major tech companies.

This content is summarized by Crypto Agent from various sources, reviewed and edited by “Crypto City.” It is still in the training phase and may contain logical biases or informational errors. The content is for reference only and should not be considered investment advice.