When you buy through affiliate links in our content, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Learn 
On June 18, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Pitts ruled on a lawsuit filed by Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest against Meta, Facebook’s parent company.
Forrest alleged that Meta had facilitated crypto advertisement scams that utilized his likeness without consent. Meta’s attempt to dismiss the case was unsuccessful, paving the way for further legal proceedings.
Meta Deepfake Crypto Ad Lawsuit
District Court Judge Casey Pitts ruled that Forrest, Australia’s second-wealthiest individual, may proceed to demonstrate that Meta itself misappropriated his name and likeness. This ruling allows Forrest to hold Meta accountable, in addition to the fraudsters responsible for the fake ads.
Read the order: https://t.co/inIW3OrBUY
— Rob Freund (@RobertFreundLaw) June 18, 2024
Forrest contends that Meta’s deepfake crypto ad unlawfully incorporated his likeness, tarnishing his reputation and deceiving the public. He alleges that Meta’s software, which controls the final appearance and audience of the ads, effectively makes the company a co-creator of the fraudulent content.
Dr. Andrew Forrest sued Meta over scam Facebook ads that included deepfakes of him promoting crypto.
He alleged that Meta's software helped to create some of the scam ads via GenAI tools.
Today, the court ruled that his publicity rights and negligence claims can go forward. pic.twitter.com/LH7jQ6wFVP
— Rob Freund (@RobertFreundLaw) June 18, 2024
By contrast, Meta claims that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability as a publisher of third-party content.
This Act protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users. It states that providers of interactive computer services are not considered the publishers of user-generated content, shielding them from legal responsibility for most content posted by others.
However, Judge Pitts found that Meta had not “established beyond dispute” that Section 230 provided “an ironclad affirmative defense” to all of Forrest’s allegations. This ruling opens the door for further legal proceedings as Forrest holds Meta accountable for its alleged role in the deepfake ad scheme.
Crypto and Tech Flooded by Deepfake Scammers
In 2019, Andrew Forrest uncovered that his identity had been exploited to promote fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes to Meta users. He alleged that over 1,000 deceptive ads ran from April to November 2020, resulting in significant financial losses for numerous victims.
Meta initially promised to fix the problem, but many misleading ads stayed online. These ads included fake reviews and videos of Andrew Forrest, created to trick unsuspecting consumers.
This case is part of a broader trend of deepfake scams, as seen in a recent incident where over 35 YouTube channels streamed a deepfake video of Elon Musk promising to double cryptocurrency deposits.
🚀🚨 Beware! Crypto scammers hijacked 35+ @YouTube channels, spreading #DeepFake #crypto #scam of @elonmusk. Scammers abuse #SpaceX Starship's 4th flight test, luring victims with double profits. Stay vigilant! pic.twitter.com/SBDpSDDWZ7
— Avast Threat Labs (@AvastThreatLabs) June 6, 2024
Such instances underscore the increasing prevalence of deepfakes in the tech and crypto industries, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat them.
