• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Meta Platforms plans to ask the Supreme Court to review a decision by Washington's highest court that upheld a state law requiring requiring online platforms to make detailed disclosures about online political ads.

The company said in papers filed this week with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan that Washington's judges "egregiously erred" in their analysis of the law, adding that its mandates "are so burdensome that they have forced Meta, Google, and other online platforms to ban political advertising in Washington altogether."

The company is asking Kagan to extend the deadline for seeking review from September 16 to November 15.

She granted that request on Thursday.

Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Act requires companies displaying digital ads to divulge detailed information about them upon request -- including the ads' cost and sponsors, descriptions of the geolocations and audiences targeted, and the total number of impressions generated.

The state first passed a campaign-finance disclosure law in the 1970s and updated it in 2018, after it came to light that Russian operatives used social-media platforms to spread propaganda during the 2016 presidential election.

Meta banned political ads in Washington state after the law was updated, but noted in court filings that "unauthorized ads sometimes slip through" its screening process.

In 2020, Governor Bob Ferguson, then attorney general, sued Meta for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements.

He alleged that Meta sold hundreds of ads to at least 171 Washington state political committees, but failed to make information about the ads available.

King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North sided against Meta, ruling in 2022 that the company violated the state law 822 times, based on evidence that Facebook failed to respond to specific requests for information.

He fined the company $30,000 per violation, for a total of nearly $25 million, and also ordered Meta to pay $10.5 million to the attorney general's office.

Meta appealed, arguing to the state's highest court that the law is so burdensome that it violates the First Amendment.

The company contended that the statute "has made it irrational and unworkable for digital platforms to carry political ads targeting Washington state and local elections," and that it "tips the scales against disempowered political actors who need low-cost but effective digital advertising to communicate with voters."

A majority of the Washington court sided against Meta, with Justice G. Helen Whitener writing: "The disclosure law may impact Meta’s motivation to host political speech, but it does not prevent Meta from hosting the political speech."

Meta says in its new filing with Kagan that the result of the law "is to tilt the playing field in favor of big-money campaigns and incumbents who can afford more expensive and traditional kinds of advertising."

The company adds that disclosure requirements "are anything but narrowly tailored."

"Washington permits any person in the world to request information about any political ad at any time, and platforms must turn it over within an extremely short period of time," Meta says.