Santa Clara County filed a civil lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. on Friday, alleging the company profited from fraudulent scam advertisements [1].
The legal action represents a growing effort by local governments to hold social media companies accountable for the content they monetize. By targeting the company's advertising practices, the county seeks to establish that tech platforms have a legal obligation to protect users from financial exploitation.
County Counsel Tony LoPresti said the lawsuit is based on violations of California's Business and Professions Code. The filing alleges that Meta failed to properly regulate scam ads on its platforms, allowing fraudulent actors to reach and exploit vulnerable individuals for profit [1, 2].
"Companies that profit from reaching people should be expected to protect them — not expose them to fraud in pursuit of even more revenue," LoPresti said [3].
The scale of the alleged activity is significant. According to some reports, Meta profited from billions of dollars in scam advertisements [4, 5]. Other reports suggest the company's platforms hosted billions of scam ads targeting vulnerable users [3].
This lawsuit arrives as Meta faces increasing legal pressure following a landmark ruling against social media giants [1]. The county's case focuses on the intersection of corporate profit and user safety, arguing that the company's failure to police its ad network constitutes a breach of business law [2].
Meta has not yet provided a detailed public response to the specific allegations in the Santa Clara County filing. The case is expected to move through the California court system as the county seeks damages, and changes to how the company manages its advertising ecosystem [1, 2].
“Companies that profit from reaching people should be expected to protect them.”
This lawsuit shifts the legal focus from content moderation—which often enjoys broad protections—to the commercial act of selling advertising space. By citing the Business and Professions Code, Santa Clara County is attempting to frame the presence of scams not as a failure of censorship, but as a deceptive business practice. If successful, this could create a precedent requiring social media platforms to implement more rigorous financial vetting for advertisers to avoid liability for user losses.
