A Washington state appeals court denied Meta Platforms Inc.’s request to withdraw a lower court’s $35 million judgment against the social media company for a campaign law violation on Monday.
“This significant penalty is appropriate for a multinational corporation that intentionally violated our law, and, instead of accepting responsibility, sought to gut our best-in-the-nation campaign finance law,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement on Judge Michael Diaz’s 75-page opinion.
Meta didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment on the case by publication time.
The state sued Meta in King County Superior Court, alleging that it violated Washington state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, a disclosure law requiring companies to keep detailed records of political advertisements.
The superior court sided with the state and issued the $35 million judgment, “two-thirds of which consisted of a civil penalty and one-third of which was an award of the State’s attorney fees and costs,” according to the appeals court judge.
Meta—the parent company of Facebook and Instagram—appealed, arguing that the disclosure law violates the First Amendment and that the superior court “miscalculated the damages it imposed.”
According to the appeals court document, Meta allows political advertisers to buy ads and target specific demographics on the platform.
In 2018, Meta set up an “Ad Library” to maintain detailed advertisement information.
The state previously sued Meta in 2018 for not complying with the disclosure law. The company was fined $238,000 after two people complained that Meta was not disclosing requested political advertisement information.
In 2020, the state filed another lawsuit arguing that Facebook was selling ads without keeping records in accordance with campaign finance disclosure law after more complaints surfaced.
“Whether you’re a tech giant or a small newspaper, those who sell political ads must follow our campaign finance law,” Ferguson said in a statement on the filing. “Washingtonians have a right to know who’s behind the ads seeking to influence their vote.”
Ferguson argued that the Ad Library doesn’t include all the information that Washington state disclosure law requires, such as ad costs, sponsors, and targeting demographic information.
The lower court ruled that Meta violated the campaign finance law a total of 822 times.
In 2022, Meta appealed, requesting an “emergency motion for a stay of the superior court’s injunction,” claiming that the ruling violated its First Amendment rights. It also invoked Section 230 of the Communications Act, which gives immunity to online platforms that generate content from third-party users.
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that Meta violated the campaign finance law and rejected Meta’s immunity argument and the company’s request for the court to lessen its fine.
“Thus, while there is no authority on point, we hold, on this record and on the briefing before us, that Meta lacks standing to assert such claims,” the appeals court stated.
“As to the non-constitutional third-party privacy rights allegedly violated here, it is clear that Meta has no third party standing to raise its constitutional claims based on the right to privacy of another.”
