California鈥檚 Court of Appeals Rules that Meta Can't Evade Liability in Case Claiming Facebook鈥檚 Ad Tools Violate Users' Civil Rights
SAN FRANCISCO 鈥 California's First District Court of Appeal has ruled that Facebook can be sued for allegedly discriminating on the basis of gender and age, in violation of civil rights laws.
In the case Samantha Liapes et al., v. Facebook, Inc., the court of appeal ruled that a lower court had erred by holding that Facebook is immune from liability pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally indemnifies interactive websites from liability for third-party content. The Court of Appeal also found that the allegations were sufficient for the case to proceed on claims that Facebook鈥檚 ad targeting and delivery tools were discriminatory and aided and abetted discrimination by advertisers.
Facebook has created an advertising platform that allows companies to target advertisements to specific categories of users. Ms. Liapes claims that Facebook has designed and uses various tools 鈥 some with solicited advertiser input, and others without 鈥 that treat users disparately on the basis of protected characteristics, violating California鈥檚 Unruh Civil Rights Act, to provide advertisements for insurance.
Ms. Liapes is a 48-year-old woman and regular Facebook user, who was interested in learning about insurance products via ads on her news feed. She was unable to apply for a quote and possibly obtain a policy because she could not view several life insurance ads posted on Facebook due to her age or gender.
California鈥檚 First District Court of Appeal decision aligns with the arguments made by Lawyers鈥 Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Southern California, 老澳门开奖结果 of Northern California, and Upturn in an amicus brief. The groups argued that Facebook鈥檚 conduct was discriminatory and harmful, particularly given the insurance industry鈥檚 extensive history of discrimination against women, older people, and other marginalized groups.
鈥淭his is a watershed decision for online discrimination,鈥 said David Brody, managing attorney for the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyers鈥 Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淚t is not acceptable to target and steer ads for important economic opportunities on the basis of protected characteristics like race or sex. This decision makes clear that algorithms and business models built on discrimination must change.鈥
鈥淐onsumers today rely on the internet, including online advertising, to access important economic opportunities, such as insurance products. Facebook advertises insurance opportunities directly to some users, in this case men and younger people, while illegally forcing other users, including women and older people, to make additional efforts to learn about those same opportunities,鈥 said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney in the 老澳门开奖结果 Racial Justice Program. 鈥淲e鈥檙e glad that the ruling opens possible pathways for accountability against social media platforms.鈥
鈥淚f a tech company violates your rights, they should be held responsible just like a brick-and-mortar business would be,鈥 said Jacob Snow, senior staff attorney at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Northern California. 鈥淭his important ruling reaffirms that tech companies are not immune from claims under decades-old civil rights laws. The targeted advertising at the core of Meta鈥檚 surveillance business model threatens to harm already marginalized communities, and this ruling confirms that courts should fully consider those claims.鈥
鈥淣o one should be denied insurance or other important services because of who they are,鈥 said Amanda Goad, Audrey Irmas director of the LGBTQ, Gender & Reproductive Justice Project at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Southern California. 鈥淲e appreciate the court鈥檚 recognition of the harm that discriminatory ad targeting and delivery practices can cause to users like Ms. Liapes.鈥
鈥淐ivil rights laws protect people both online and offline,鈥 said Mitra Ebadolahi, senior project director at Upturn. 鈥淥ur research clearly shows how Facebook鈥檚 own actions contribute to discrimination in online advertising. It鈥檚 time Facebook faces civil rights liability for its discriminatory actions.鈥
The opinion is here: /cases/laipes-v-facebook-inc?document=Opinion