A German court has ruled that Meta can be held legally responsible for fake advertisements posted by third parties on Facebook and Instagram, creating a significant development in the debate over the responsibility of social media platforms for fraudulent content distributed through their systems.
The Frankfurt Regional Court issued its decision on September 16, 2026, following a lawsuit filed by a German financial information portal and its founder. According to the court, unknown third parties had used the company’s registered logo, as well as the name and image of its founder, in advertisements and posts promoting financial investments that were allegedly fraudulent. The advertisements were published on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms.
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and said Meta must stop the publication and distribution of the fake advertisements. The company was also ordered to compensate the plaintiffs for damages arising from the continued distribution of similar fake advertisements. In addition, Meta must provide information about the advertisements and the revenue generated from them.
The case highlights the growing legal questions surrounding the role of major social media companies in the distribution of fraudulent advertisements. The issue is particularly relevant when platforms use automated systems and algorithms to determine which advertisements are displayed to users and how frequently they appear.
According to the Frankfurt court, the financial portal had reported nearly 260 violations to Meta through the company's reporting system in August 2024 alone. Despite those reports, new advertisements that were identical or substantially similar continued to appear. The court said some reported fake advertisements remained online for periods of up to 62 days before being removed.
The advertisements were particularly concerning because they used the identity and reputation of an established financial information business and its founder. The court said the unauthorized use of the company’s trademark affected its business-related personal rights, while the use of the founder’s name and image affected his personal rights.
A central issue in the case was whether Meta could rely on the liability protections available to online service providers under the European Union’s Digital Services Act, commonly known as the DSA.
The DSA establishes rules concerning the responsibilities of digital platforms and other online services. Under certain circumstances, service providers can avoid liability for illegal content stored at the request of users if they do not have actual knowledge of the illegal activity or content and act promptly after becoming aware of it.
Meta argued that it should not be held responsible for third-party advertisements because it did not have prior knowledge of every piece of fraudulent content uploaded to its platforms. However, the Frankfurt Regional Court rejected that argument in this case.
The court said Meta exercises a level of control over the advertising content displayed to users through its technical systems. It specifically referred to Meta’s automated advertising auction process, which determines the ranking and timing of advertisements, as well as algorithms that influence the distribution of user content in feeds.
The court distinguished Meta’s systems from a platform that simply displays user content in chronological order. According to the ruling, Meta’s algorithms and advertising mechanisms play an active role in determining what content is shown to users and when it is shown.
The German court also referred to a recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning platform liability and the circumstances in which an online service provider may lose the benefit of liability protections. This legal reasoning was part of the basis for rejecting Meta’s argument in the Frankfurt case.
Meta has disagreed with the decision. A company spokesperson said Meta respectfully disagreed with the ruling and was considering its next steps. The company also pointed to measures it has taken to identify and remove scam advertisements, including proactive detection systems and action on reported content.
The ruling does not mean that Meta has been declared automatically responsible for every fraudulent advertisement appearing on Facebook or Instagram. The decision concerns the specific circumstances examined by the Frankfurt Regional Court, including the use of the plaintiffs’ identity and trademark and Meta’s role in distributing the advertisements.
The court’s decision is also not legally final. The Frankfurt court stated that the judgment can be challenged through an appeal to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt. This means the legal position could change if the case proceeds to a higher court.
The decision could nevertheless have broader significance for discussions about online advertising and platform responsibility in Europe. Social media companies increasingly rely on automated systems to select, rank and deliver advertisements to users. Regulators and courts in Europe have been examining how those systems affect the responsibilities of platforms when illegal or misleading material is distributed.
For users, the case also highlights the risks associated with fraudulent investment advertisements on social media. Fake advertisements may misuse the names, photographs, logos or reputations of legitimate companies and individuals to create an appearance of credibility. Users are therefore advised to verify investment offers independently and avoid relying solely on advertisements appearing on social media platforms.
For Meta, the ruling adds another legal challenge concerning how its advertising and content-distribution systems operate. The company’s potential appeal could provide further clarification on how European platform liability rules apply when algorithms and advertising systems actively influence the distribution of third-party content.
The Frankfurt decision therefore represents an important legal development involving social media advertising, consumer protection, trademark misuse and the responsibilities of digital platforms. However, because the judgment is subject to appeal, its final legal impact will depend on any subsequent proceedings and decisions by higher courts.