A Frankfurt court has ruled that Meta can be held directly liable for fraudulent advertisements run by third parties on Instagram and Facebook — rejecting the company’s usual legal defense and ordering it to remove the fake ads, pay damages, and disclose how much revenue it made from them.
What the Court Actually Ruled
The Frankfurt regional court issued its judgment on September 16, siding with the operator of German personal finance platform Finanzfluss and its founder, Thomas Kehl, whose trademarked logo and likeness had been used without consent in fraudulent investment ads. The court ordered Meta to remove the fake content, pay damages to Kehl, and disclose information about the fraudulent ads — including the revenue they generated for Meta.
Why Meta’s Usual Defense Didn’t Work Here
Meta’s standard legal shield in cases like this is the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which generally protects platforms from liability for third-party content they’re not aware of — similar in spirit to safe-harbor protections elsewhere. The Frankfurt court rejected that defense specifically, drawing a distinction between platforms that simply display content chronologically and platforms like Instagram and Facebook, where Meta’s own algorithms and advertising practices actively determine what content users actually see. Because Meta exercises that level of control over distribution, the court reasoned, it can’t credibly claim ignorance of what its systems are actively promoting — undercutting the “lack-of-knowledge” defense the DSA would otherwise provide. The ruling cited a precedent set by a June decision from the European Court of Justice.
The Scale of the Problem
The case centered on nearly 260 fraudulent ads reported by the Finanzfluss operator to Meta in August 2024 alone — all using Kehl’s protected logo and image without permission to promote investment schemes the court found were allegedly designed with fraudulent intent. What made this especially damaging for Meta’s legal position was the response time: according to the court, Meta took as long as 62 days to remove some of the reported content, even after being notified.
| Detail | Figure |
|---|---|
| Fraudulent ads reported (August 2024) | ~260 |
| Longest removal time after reporting | Up to 62 days |
| Ruling date | September 16, 2026 |
| Court | Frankfurt Regional Court, Germany |
What Meta Has to Do Now
Under the ruling, Meta is required to remove the identified fraudulent content, compensate Kehl for damages tied to the misuse of his image and logo, and disclose detailed information about the fake ads to the plaintiffs — including how much advertising revenue Meta earned from them while they remained active. That last requirement is notable: it forces a level of financial transparency around ad revenue that platforms don’t typically have to disclose, and could inform how damages are ultimately calculated or how future cases are argued.
Can Meta Appeal?
Yes. According to the court, the decision can be challenged through a legal remedy, and Meta has indicated it is reviewing the verdict and considering its next steps. This means the ruling isn’t necessarily final — but it stands as a significant legal precedent in Germany regardless of whether Meta appeals, particularly given its explicit rejection of the DSA’s lack-of-knowledge defense for algorithm-driven platforms.
Why This Ruling Matters Beyond One Case
Fake investment ads impersonating recognizable public figures and brands have become a persistent, well-documented problem across social media platforms, often used to lure victims into fraudulent financial schemes. This ruling matters because it directly challenges the legal argument platforms have relied on to avoid responsibility for this kind of third-party fraud — the idea that they’re just neutral conduits unaware of specific bad content. By tying Meta’s algorithmic control over content distribution to legal accountability, the Frankfurt court has opened a path that other plaintiffs — and potentially other European courts — could follow in future cases involving fake ads, scam content, or impersonation.
Part of a Broader Pattern of European Legal Pressure on Meta
This isn’t Meta’s only major legal fight in Europe right now. The company is separately facing a €550 million lawsuit in Spain brought by more than 80 Spanish media outlets, including the publishers of El País, El Mundo, and La Vanguardia, over allegations that Meta violated EU data protection rules to gain an unfair advertising advantage over traditional news publishers between 2018 and 2023. Taken together, these cases reflect a broader pattern of European courts and regulators pushing back on Meta’s advertising practices and platform responsibilities under evolving EU digital regulation.
Final Thoughts
This ruling marks a real setback for one of Meta’s standard legal defenses in Europe, establishing that algorithm-driven platforms can’t simply claim ignorance of harmful third-party content when their own systems are actively promoting it. With Meta reviewing its options for an appeal and a separate nine-figure lawsuit already underway in Spain, this case adds to a growing body of European legal precedent that could meaningfully reshape how platforms like Instagram and Facebook are held accountable for the ads and content running through their systems.
