• by Wendy Davis , May 29, 2026

Meta Platforms is asking a federal appellate court to throw out a class-action complaint by consumers who lost money after responding to fake Facebook ads created by third parties.

The company argues in papers filed Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Facebook's terms of service inform users in a "clear" and "unambiguous" disclaimer that it isn't responsible for material posted to the platform by others.

Meta's argument comes in a dispute dating to 2021, when consumers including Oregon resident Christopher Calise alleged in a class-action complaint that they lost money after responding to phony ads on Facebook. Calise specifically alleged that he was bilked out of around $49 after attempting to purchase a car-engine assembly kit advertised on the platform.

The complaint claims that Meta failed to honor statements in its terms of service and "community standards" sections. The plaintiffs point to a provision in the terms of service stating that Meta will "take appropriate action" if it learns of harmful content, and a "community standards" provision saying Meta removes content that "purposefully deceives, willfully misrepresents or otherwise defrauds or exploits others for money or property.”

Meta sought a dismissal before trial, arguing that the statements flagged in the complaint impose rules on Facebook users, as opposed to obligations on the company. Meta also pointed to the terms-of-service provision disclaiming liability for material posted by by third parties.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California sided against the platform, ruling in September that the allegations, if proven true, could support claims that Meta broke its contract with users and violated its duty of good faith.

White also found Meta's disclaimer of liability for third-party ads "unconscionable," writing that the company "seeks to avoid all liability for breach of any of its promises relating to promoting and benefiting from known fraudulent content."

Meta is now asking the 9th Circuit to reverse White's ruling, arguing that he misinterpreted the terms of service.

"The community standards govern Facebook users’ conduct and do not impose any obligations on Meta," the platform argues.

Meta adds that the terms of service "speak only in aspirational terms about Meta’s ability to remove" fraudulent content, and don't promise to take "concrete steps to effectuate that aspiration."

The platform also disputes that its attempt to limit liability for fraud is "unconscionable," writing that the disclaimer "contains reasonable limitations in light of the free service Meta provides" and is similar to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which separately provides that interactive services aren't responsible for posts by users.

(Earlier in the proceedings, Meta argued that it was protected from all claims by Section 230. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that Section 230 didn't immunize Meta from allegations that it broke its contract with users by violating its own terms of service, but the court also said at the time that it wasn't clear whether the terms of service created an enforceable contract.)

Class counsel is expected to respond to Meta's argument next month.

Meta is currently facing other lawsuits over fake ads, including a case filed in April by the watchdog Consumer Federation of America. That suit draws on a recent Reuters report alleging that Meta expected to earn around 10% of its 2024 revenue, amounting to around $16 billion, from ads for scams, illegal gambling and the sale of banned goods. That report also alleged that Meta charges more for ads if its system determines the advertiser likely is a scammer.