Meta Accused Of Discrimination For Its Former Ad-Targeting Options

It looks like Meta might be facing the consequences of its actions that were linked to its old advertising policies.

The company is being called out by a federal court that recently brought back a new lawsuit where the tech giant was accused of discrimination. This was right after violating a number of rules.

This ruling came on Friday and comprised a panel featuring three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was bold enough to reject the argument coming out of Meta’s side where it stated how it had been protected by a liability through Section 230. The latter is what provides protection from content developed via third parties.

Now, it’s being outlined how the allegations in such a case, if and when true, may delineate how Facebook was co-developing ads and the blame was not only on the host.

Facebook was outlined in the court filings made by the plaintiff that it was not only an information publisher but was providing data and assisting in the whole co-development process as well.

The decision was taken by the majority of judges who alleged that the firm’s entire advertising platform went against civil rights laws by enabling advertisers who were blocking housing advertisements from so many users, all based on confounders like age and gender, among others.

This happens to be just one of many cases issued against Facebook regarding discriminatory advertisements. And when that case did appear out in the open, the app agreed to fix up options for targeting ads that stop advertisers from dealing in products and services like credit cards, housing, and more.

The judge at the US district court had initially dismissed any such allegations that arose two years ago. He stated that the users of the platform’s complaints were not easy to prove and they failed to display how it was getting affected by the company’s ex-options for ad targeting.

These complaints were called out as general grievances that aren’t going to give anyone the right to sue. And that’s because there were no such results in place that met the criteria.

Meanwhile, it was interesting also to see the judge rule during that period how the company was also guarded against such claims via Section 230. This was linked to illegal advertisements that were put up right outside parties but they noted how the firm’s ex-advertising tools were functioning neutrally.

But an appeal regarding the decision was made in the 9th Circuit that popped up across Friday.

Read next: YouTube Publishes Its Creative Trends Report For 2023 With The Latest Shifts In Audience Interests
Previous Post Next Post