Australian billionaire wins right to sue Facebook in the US over scam ads Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest has won the right to sue Meta over ads it carried that falsely depict him endorsing cryptocurrencies and other financial services products. Forrest has long railed against fake ads using his likeness, and requested Meta take them down and prevent further ads appearing. Those entreaties had …
Exactly typical american two face bullshit.
Just like the Boeing CEO, im a fucking wonderful areshole gimme millions in bonuses because if it wasnt for me, there would be no boeing. Then when the max crashes because of HIS decisions, its not his fault and he shouldnt goto jail.
... but it's a completely different thing to say ... I would argue, it is not qualitatively different, only quantitatively different - profit is profit whether is from tracking and selling user data or selling ads. E.g., for a long time Facebook knowingly promoted Alex Jones as he got rich and famous for slandering and causing the unimaginably horrible harassment of the Sandy Hook school massacre victims. Eventually Facebook banned Jones, but they didn't return the profit they made from the traffic up to that point in time - traffic generates profits for Facebook because Facebook sells that data . (Incidentally, Jones was probably one customer of that data).
But Section 230 and freedom, right? Well it doesn't protect Jones (thank God), or any other Facebook user. It just protects Facebook right to profit of hurting others.
"It's one thing if you're the conduit, it's another if you're being paid for it."
It's compounded if you've been told that the advertiser is using your likeness and reputation without your permission.
I can see the frustration since there are laws about using somebody's likeness to promote a product without their permission but they can take a long time to get to court and then have a judge require those ads are taken down, etc. By that time, the ad has run it's course and the scammers are on to something else.
I'm sorry, the ability to sue for slander is not something that should be under the authority of some administrative busybody.
The Australian so-called Director of Public Prosecutions should be fired and someone competent put in his place.
Oh, sorry. Silly me, I forgot. Australian government exists only to pander to Big Oil . . .
Hey, that's not true, they'll sell out to big coal too, in fact, anyone who wants to dig up our natural resources and off shore the profits - hell, not even stop there, they can log trees we've previously flagged as protected or pollute waterways...everything must go in the land down under..
nonsense. Pandering to Big Bureaucracy is also a favourite pastime to get friends into all those overpaid taxpayer funded sinecures. And if Oz guvmint didn't sell coal, China might get upset at us and Oz couldn't afford to give subsides for windmills and solar panels on good farmland.
So you hate big oil - good... you do realise that theres nothing green about EV as well....
Before you jump on me, and repeat like a parrot, make sure you have actual facts for your claims...
Tell me the address of a single recycling center for EV batteries anywhere in AU... and also show me facts that show EV batteries are being recycled at said location from a real independent source not some nobody who could very well be making shit up...as Musk is known to do of course.
Their own websites acknowledges thet do NOT recycle, they give the batteries to their partners which are of course not listed.
So the challenge remains WHO actually recycles the batteries ?
Without any names of aany kind or any independently verified stats the number still remains ZERO.
https://infinitev.au/pages/faq
Infinitev characterise all modules ofbatteries we receive to determine their next-best use case. Where possible, we will reuse them (e.g., hybrid replacement batteries) or repurpose them (e.g., BESS 1). Where this is not possible, we discharge the modules and safely transport them to reputable end-of-life processors. Our partners then responsibly process these modules to recover valuable materials from them.
Infinitev are members of the Australian Battery Recycling Initiative (ABRI) and the Battery Stewardship Council (BSC). We follow all regulations and best-practice guidelines that apply.
I dont have to prove anything Im not the one making a material claim.
If you claim to have seen a UFO and gathered parts of the spacecraft, then its your JOB to show them, not mine.
Extraordariny claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you or anyone else is going to claim something material, usual like something exists, they need to prove it. A quick google search on any map of any australian city comes up with ZERO ev battery recycling places... so WHERE are they ?
Simple answer is of course they dont exist,...
Yes I do, thank you very much.
I don't have an EV and I don't intend to get one. That doesn't mean that I approve of selling one's country to multinational conglomerates.
Excuse me if I prefer the idea of democracy - however hard that is to keep going these days.
A major component before democracy can actually work... is to be honest about public matters.
I have merely been trying to point out that EVs are not green, they are actually worse for the environment than ICE, and ICE are in themselves also terrible.
THere is a third answer which nobody ever mentions,... drive/commute/ do those types of things LESS... thats far more achievable than pretending EVs are the anwer and lying about their credentials.
Libel is a tort rather than a crime in Australia. It would be up to Twiggy to bring a private prosecution, rather than the DPP a public one. I think he tried (case being that his reputation was being debased by Facebook's behaviour) and failed because of jurisdictional problems.
So do most people, they repeat the LIE that EV batteries are recycled yet its a fact they are not .. A simple search shows only 5% of EV batteries are recycled, which leads to the next question what happens to the 95% that are not ?
How toxic are they ? Answer very toxic. Sur e ICE cars are bad, theres no denying that, but EV batteries are worse, forever chemicals, toxic crap of thew orst kind, yeh Nickel cadmium, lithium and other heavy metals.
Unless Australian law has greatly deviated from UK it would be a civil rather than a criminal offence and not within the DPP's scope. In fact, it seems rather odd that he would have expected the DPP to have acted on a charge of libel.
However I'd have thought promoting a scam would fall in scope although the fact that his image was being used might not have fiven him the same standing as a victim of a scam when it comes to making a complaint.
"However I'd have thought promoting a scam would fall in scope although the fact that his image was being used might not have fiven him the same standing as a victim of a scam when it comes to making a complaint."
He's a victim if anybody believes that he is endorsing the scams. Reputational harm is important for people that trade on their reputations. It can also cause all sorts of other issues. A friend of mine is endorsed by a drum manufacturer. As part of his deal, he must play their drums at all live gigs (recording is a different thing). If somebody faked him playing another brand of drum kit on one of his regular gigs (not just sitting in), and used that to endorse that brand, he could wind up in court for violating his contract or at least having a lot of 'splaining to do. The last thing he'd want is to owe the company $6k in repayment of the gear and be seen in the industry as someone who doesn't live up to their contracts. The loss of reputation would be a hard hit. Not that he needs the endorsement or he doesn't make any money, but, hey, it's $6k retail of kit he didn't have to splash out. He'd be a victim of the fraud more than somebody that bought a brand B drum kit based on his perceived endorsement.
Australian law was British law at some point in the beginning but even then that wasnt true as the governor had special rights and powers not possible back in England. Im going to pretend that Scotland and the other home countries law and customs were irrelevant for colonies.
Look, I know it'll never happen as long as lobbyists are allowed and companies can donate to politicians.
But ALL social media platforms need to be reclassified as 'publishers' and held liable for everything that is posted on their platforms. It's the only way to force them to follow the rules and laws... you fine them ridiculous amounts of money far in excess of what they earn. All the understand is profit and if they want to keep earning it, they need to deal with the lies, the hate and the misinformation that takes up the majority of their platforms.
While you are at it, advertises on the internet also need to be liable for the fake medical products they sell. Im sure many people have died because they believed in fake ads on google and FB instead of going to a real doctor. G and FB should be held liable for their contribution to this sad stories.
Its about time advertisers were liable for the bullshit they sell.
If you can take the money claiming to your customers that your ads are this and that then you can also take REAL responsibility for the ads you show to the public.
I know it wont happen but there needs to be more governments closing down advertisers for the REAL lies they show to the public which have REAL negtive consequences. AS an example im referring to all the fake medical claims we see advertised everywhere that rip people off and also do real harm to idiots who believe them.
Said it before and will say it again, third party advertising needs to be shut down and made illegal for the harmful effects it makes up on humanity.
I don't live in Australia, I'm in the US, but I don't recall seeing something like an ad with Elon Musk or Warren Buffett or Michael Jordan or whoever shilling for some random cryptocurrency or something like that where I'm "yeah there's no way that's legit".
Hard to believe something like that would happen elsewhere that doesn't (AFAIK, just what I've seen) happen in the US. I thought we had the most lax laws for that kind of stuff in the world. At least I feel pretty sure we are behind the UK and EU, which appear to have better legal protections against false advertising and libel, and would have assumed Australia's laws were more similar to those than to ours.
"I'm in the US, but I don't recall seeing something like an ad with Elon Musk or Warren Buffett or Michael Jordan or whoever shilling for some random cryptocurrency or something"
Elon with Dogecoin?
Warren is distinctly on record as being against crypto so any ad purporting his endorsement is going to be very suspect unless he had also appeared on an established news show telling about how he had reversed course.
Is Michael Jordan still endorsing things? I don't watch TV nor do I pay much mind to sports figures touting things. It's not that they couldn't be knowledgeable, but the odds are against it. I'm also not in the market for a pair of $300+ trainers.
WHo "established" David as a respectable person. We as the public actually know very little about him except the persona presented and cultivated by the media. We all know th emedia can hardly be trust they will willingly whore themselves for their own celebrities. Take Prince Andrew it was nt that long ago you would have said the same about Andrew being respected...
So a suing attempt would fail if Facebook cancels all communications.
I'm only an American hundredaire and tried to setup a Facebook account when Facebook first appeared for public registrations. My attempt to sign in for a Facebook account was cancelled and I was told that Facebook would prosecute me if I tried to setup an account again - I have never been able to communicate with Facebook about this because you must have a Facebook account to talk to Facebook ... either so I'll be interested to see how this goes.
I was cancelled because Facebook said my English family name was a fake ... I was living in American and Facebook was only American in the early days.
The only public interaction system left to those who don't want or can't have a FecalFart account is [drumroll please] the courts.
Naturally us minions don't have the resources to take on Emperor Zuck and his legions of Lawyers (the same goes for Google and X) but this Aussie does.
Good luck sir. I hope you wipe the floor with Zuck.
I'm not (knowingly) on any social media platform so you can't ban me. Yah-boo-sucks to the lot of you.
I really don't understand this attitude. Facebook offers a FREE service. Part of the deal with this FREE service is that they will generally not enter into discussions with users. If you don't like this approach, don't use Facebook. Me? I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
The joke is on you... Theres no such thing as race on any scientiic level.
All races exist in the human mind. Theres no such thing as a black race or white ... so when you realise those are invented, people also invent the English or American race.
So if a company offers a free service they have no responsibilities ?
So shopping centers should have no liability if they are unsafe, for example they shouldnt have any fire systems or perhaps there should be no safety regulations on their airconditioning because its free to walk into a shopping center ?
Of course shopping centers should be allowed to have dirty air con, so what if its filled with absestos or god knows what dirty disease... because its free to walk into a shopping cneter.
I was told that Facebook would prosecute me if I tried to setup an account again - I have never been able to communicate with Facebook about this because you must have a Facebook account to talk to Facebook
So set up the account, let them sue you, and use your day in court to explain why.
"So set up the account, let them sue you, and use your day in court to explain why."
This is your advice to a "hundredaire"? Get cousin Vinny to represent you in court against a clown car full of lawyers from FB that arrive dressed in suits that cost more than many people on Earth make in five years? You are attacking a battle tank with a stick (not even a very good stick).
You've probably left it a bit late by now but like any other corporation Facebook will have a postal address. You can always use that. If you have a valid case a summons delivered there will bring them to court or the judge will want to know the reason why. How do you think Forrest got them to court?
Lets be honest ,the average person does not have the resources like Forrest to take on Face book. FB Has all the advantages to hide in another country for example, the gov should have as its mission to level the playing field.
Most people do not have the capabilities to lock up people for crimes against their family or property, the crown does that, and it should be no different on the internet.
Exactly. There are so many scams and dodgy ads, the safest bet is to ignore the lot of them or ideally block them all. Facebook and other social media companies have no interest in turning away paying scammers. They are rotten to the core.
Back when I used to have a facebook account, I often reported spam and blatant scam ads that appeared in my timeline and was routinely ignored. I stopped reporting them after a while and in the end I quit facebook completely due to the deluge of crap and scams in my feed.
I'm somewhat surprised that there are still gullible punters using facebook who actually part with money to these scammers. More money than sense.
"There are so many scams and dodgy ads, the safest bet is to ignore the lot of them or ideally block them all. "
With all of the dot com/social media companies basing their business plan on advertising and selling PII, the cost of an ad has dropped to where even the lowest form of scammer can afford to advertise on Xitter, FB/Meta and YouTube.
"I block Facebook.
At router level."
I do the same thing just in case I'm not paying attention when clicking a link or something redirects. I flush cookies and have a lengthy 127.0.0.1 listing in my host file. Some sites wind up with so much open space on their pages that I know they are just ad conveyance machines.
"If Forrest can show the law does not apply outside the US, Big Tech's advertising operations will have quite a challenge to consider."
It doesn't apply outside the U.S, but it does apply in U.S courts where he has now file a lawsuit. If his argument is that U.S courts should claim jurisdiction over the actions of U.S headquartered multinationals outside the U.S but not apply U.S law, he's going to have a hard time.
Even then Section 230 maybe irrelevant depending on how the ads were generated.
"It's possible (although unlikely) that S230 protects a company from ads submitted in the US and/or by US entities, but leaves them open to being sued (in the US) about those that have been submitted elsewhere."
Maybe there is, but there may be a need for more clarification. There's a difference between products posting things on a social media site and that site accepting advertisements to display on the site. The SM company isn't going to make sure every element is cleared and the company has releases from the people in the photos, but once notified, they need to err on the side of CYA and delete the ads until there is some investigation in the same way that product's posts must be expeditiously removed if there is a DMCA complaint filed. (Product = User)
I'm confident forrest will be successful eventually.
But all this against Facebook when google ads and YouTube ads do just the same thing. I'm still waiting for the ACCC to come down on google as hard as they did to Facebook a few years ago.
Accepting payments from criminals on your platforms so that those criminals can scam vulnerable people while you turn a blind eye and pretend it's not happening is not only immoral it's sickening, regardless of the ads content; and this is exactly what Facebook, google and YouTube do on a regular daily basis.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
