AI advertising tools fuel scams! Meta is ordered to be liable and may face securities fraud charges

A U.S. court rules that Meta may not invoke the Section 230 immunity provision. The court holds that its AI advertising tool actively optimizes the placement of scam content and has therefore lost its status as a neutral platform.

A U.S. court rules that Meta may not invoke Section 230 immunity

According to Bloomberg, a recent important ruling by a U.S. federal court in a cryptocurrency scam case found that the AI ad-delivery tools provided by Meta’s Facebook and Instagram may have gone beyond the platform immunity scope protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The court pointed out that if a platform uses AI systems to actively help optimize advertisements, recommend target audiences, and deliver content, the platform’s role could become involved in the scam content promotion process—so it cannot be considered entirely a neutral platform.

The case stems from a class action lawsuit filed against Meta by multiple investors. The plaintiffs allege that the scam group used the AI ad systems of Facebook and Instagram to extensively spread false cryptocurrency investment information and high-return guarantees, causing significant losses to investors. The court believes the allegations presented by the plaintiffs are sufficient to reasonably claim that Meta may have played an active role in ad delivery and recommendation mechanisms; therefore, it dismissed Meta’s motion to dismiss some of the claims.

AI ad recommendation mechanisms are at the core of the dispute

According to the court filings, some scam ads directly impersonated well-known entrepreneurs, financial celebrities, and investment platforms, claiming to provide “guaranteed profits,” “AI automated trading,” and “stable high-yield” schemes.

The plaintiffs said that Meta’s AI system automatically seeks out audiences most likely to click on ads based on users’ age, interests, search history, and interaction behavior, while continuously optimizing ad conversion rates—allowing scam content to spread quickly.

The court also specifically noted that when a platform uses AI to actively assist advertisers in improving reach and ad delivery performance, the platform’s role is different from that of traditional forums or message boards. The plaintiffs further argued that Meta earns substantial revenue from these related ads, and that its AI algorithms further amplify the efficiency of distributing scam content.

Securities fraud and platform responsibility come to the forefront

In addition to the issue of facilitating scams, another focus of the case is whether Meta could face liabilities related to securities fraud. Some plaintiffs believe that certain ads involve unregistered investment products and cryptocurrency asset investment schemes, and that Meta knowingly continued to provide delivery and promotion services despite the high risk associated with such content.

Legal experts said that if the court in the future finds that Meta’s AI advertising system involved “knowing or gross negligence,” it would have far-reaching implications for the entire tech platform industry. For many years, U.S. tech companies have relied heavily on Section 230 as a legal line of defense to avoid liability for platform content. However, as AI recommendation systems increasingly take proactive steps in content ranking and commercialization processes, U.S. courts in recent years have begun to re-examine the role of platforms.

Market participants generally believe that the future developments of this case may affect the future AI advertising and content recommendation models of Google, TikTok, X, and other major technology platforms.

This article was generated by Crypto Agent compiling information from various parties, with review and editing by 《Crypto City》. It is still in the training stage and may contain logical bias or information errors. The content is for reference only and should not be considered investment advice.