The legal battle between Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest and Meta Platforms Inc. over scam advertisements on Facebook has drawn international attention, testing the limits of platform liability and online scam prevention. The dispute spans two jurisdictions—Australia and the United States—each with dramatically different legal outcomes.
In Australia, Forrest pursued criminal charges against Meta, alleging that the company recklessly dealt with the proceeds of crime by profiting from deceptive ads. However, prosecutors dropped the case in early 2024, citing insufficient evidence. Meanwhile, in the United States, Forrest’s civil lawsuit survived Meta’s motion to dismiss, marking a potential precedent for holding social media platforms accountable for fraudulent advertisements.
At the heart of these cases is the question: To what extent should Meta be held responsible for the proliferation of scam ads on its platform?
In both cases, Quandary Peak Research’s Jason Frankovitz has been engaged as a consulting and testifying expert, providing critical technical analysis of Meta’s advertising practices, and alleged role in facilitating deceptive advertising.
Background of Both Cases
Dr. Forrest (known as “Twiggy” to his fellow Australians) is the chairman of Fortescue Metals Group; his unauthorized likeness appeared in over a thousand scam cryptocurrency ads on Facebook from March 2019 through November 2023. After these ads swindled Australians, including many senior citizens, Forrest filed lawsuits against Meta in both Australia and the U.S.
The Australian Criminal Case: Prosecutors Drop Charges
In Australia, Forrest sought to hold Meta criminally liable, arguing that its failure to stop scam ads amounted to reckless dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case was unprecedented—no major tech platform had faced criminal prosecution in Australia over deceptive ads before.
As part of the case, Jason Frankovitz provided expert insights into Meta’s technical operations, analyzing:
- How Meta’s ad systems function—explaining what are the hardware and software components involved in operations.
- Where Meta’s system operated —assessing what parts of ad delivery occur on Australian soil.
- The extent of Meta’s control over ad creation and placement—determining whether Meta could have acted to prevent the ads but failed to do so.
Ultimately, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dropped the case in early 2024, citing insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal charges. The decision frustrated Forrest and scam victims, many of whom lost significant sums to the deceptive ads. In response, Forrest called for urgent legal reforms to make it easier to hold foreign-owned tech companies accountable for scams that cost Australians over $3 billion annually.
The U.S. Civil Case: A Potential Legal Precedent
Although the Australian criminal case ended, Forrest’s civil lawsuit in the U.S. is still active. Filed in California’s Northern District Court, the case argues that Meta’s negligence in allowing scam ads breached its duty to operate in a commercially reasonable manner and misappropriated Forrest’s identity for financial gain.
Meta sought dismissal of the lawsuit, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically shields platforms from liability for third-party content. However, U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts denied this motion, highlighting a factual dispute regarding whether Meta’s ad systems were neutral tools or if they actively contributed to the content of the ads.
This ruling is pivotal, as it could redefine the extent of immunity granted to social media platforms under Section 230.
Jason Frankovitz has been engaged as an expert in the U.S. case as well, where he will analyze Meta’s ad-serving systems as they relate to distributing allegedly fraudulent content. His expertise will play a crucial role in explaining how Meta’s platform functions and whether its mechanisms are adequate to protect consumers.
Legislative Response: Australia’s Scams Prevention Framework
Although Forrest’s criminal case against Meta in Australia was dropped, its impact has extended beyond the courtroom. In 2024, Australia enacted a world-first scams prevention framework to enhance consumer protection. This legislation requires banks, telecommunications companies, and social media platforms to proactively detect, disrupt, and report scams. Key provisions of the new legislation include:
- Advertiser Verification: Social media companies must verify advertisers to prevent fraudulent promotions.
- Payee Identification: Banks must confirm payee identities to prevent fraudulent transactions.
- Substantial Penalties: Businesses that fail to comply face fines of up to $50 million.
This comprehensive approach aims to reduce financial fraud and protect Australians, who, on average, lose $100 per person to scams—a figure significantly higher than losses reported in the U.S. ($45 per person) and the U.K. ($34 per person).
The Future of Platform Accountability
The Forrest v. Meta cases highlight the evolving legal landscape for big tech accountability, where different jurisdictions take varied approaches to the same problem.
At Quandary Peak Research, software experts like Jason Frankovitz help courts, regulators, and policymakers understand the mechanics of platform algorithms, digital advertising systems, and software responsibility. Whether in litigation or regulatory reform, expert insights remain critical in shaping how the digital economy is governed.
As lawsuits and legislative reforms continue, one question remains: How much responsibility should platforms bear for content they profit from? The answer will shape the future of online accountability worldwide.
