Washington State Court Rejects Meta’s First Amendment Defense Regarding Political Ad Disclosure
The appellate court concurred with the ruling of the lower court, stating that Meta breached campaign finance regulations on 822 occasions.
On Monday, a Washington state appellate court dismissed Meta Platforms Inc.’s appeal to overturn the lower court’s $35 million judgment imposed for a campaign law infringement.
At the time of publication, Meta did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comments concerning the case.
The state initiated a lawsuit against Meta in King County Superior Court, accusing it of violating Washington state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, a disclosure law mandating that companies keep comprehensive records of political advertisements.
The superior court ruled in favor of the state, resulting in the $35 million judgment, where “two-thirds was a civil penalty and one-third covered the State’s attorney fees and costs,” as articulated by the appeals court judge.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, contended that the disclosure law infringes on the First Amendment and that the superior court “miscalculated the damages imposed.”
Related Stories
As per the appellate court documents, Meta permits political advertisers to purchase ads and target specific demographic groups on its platform.
In 2018, Meta launched an “Ad Library” to preserve detailed information concerning advertisements.
Previously, in 2018, the state took legal action against Meta for failing to adhere to the disclosure law, resulting in a $238,000 penalty after complaints emerged about Meta’s lack of transparency regarding political ad information.
Ferguson contended that the Ad Library fails to include all information mandated by Washington state’s disclosure law, such as ad expenses, sponsors, and targeted demographic information.
The lower court determined that Meta was in breach of the campaign finance law on 822 occasions.
In 2022, Meta appealed, seeking an “emergency motion for a stay of the superior court’s injunction,” asserting that the ruling infringed upon its First Amendment rights. The company also cited Section 230 of the Communications Act, which provides immunity to online platforms that host content generated by third-party users.
The appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling that Meta violated the campaign finance law, dismissing Meta’s immunity claims and its appeal to reduce the penalty.
“Accordingly, while there is no precedent directly applicable, we conclude, based on the current record and the presented arguments, that Meta lacks the standing to assert such claims,” the appellate court remarked.
“Regarding the alleged infringement of third-party privacy rights, it is evident that Meta does not possess the standing to assert constitutional claims based on another’s right to privacy.”
