Between October 2018 and at least March 2019, advertisements appeared on Facebook and Instagram in which De Mol and other well-known Dutch celebrities promoted investing in Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. The advertisements turned out to be fake: not only had De Mol and others not given their permission, but people who responded to the advertisements and transferred money did not receive any Bitcoins and never saw their money again. Victims lost a total of at least €1.7 million as a result.
After persistent pressure from De Mol, the advertisements featuring him were finally removed. De Mol then initiated legal proceedings demanding that Facebook be prohibited from allowing the false Bitcoin advertisements any longer. He also wanted Facebook to be obliged to share the advertisers' details with him and to ban these advertisers from Facebook and Instagram forever. Facebook refused to comply with the demands. According to the company, it is already doing a great deal to combat false advertisements. According to the company, further action cannot be mandated, is not legally permitted, and is also technically impossible.
The preliminary relief judge did not agree with this and largely ruled in favor of De Mol. Facebook's argument that it is merely a neutral conduit for information and therefore cannot be obliged to take action at all does not apply in this case. The company plays too active a role in this regard with regard to advertisements, which are Facebook's primary revenue model. Facebook not only determines the rates, but also has an active policy on which advertisements do and do not appear on Facebook and Instagram. The court therefore rejected the argument that the company implements this policy voluntarily, as a 'Good Samaritan'.
Furthermore, there are no legal provisions that would prevent Facebook from doing more to combat fake advertisements. De Mol's demand is too specific to result in a general filtering ban, which would indeed be prohibited by law. Facebook's appeal to the right to freedom of information and expression is also unfounded, as these are commercial expressions that are presumably punishable by law.
The fact that the advertisements were eventually removed after De Mol insisted and hardly reappeared afterwards shows that it is apparently technically possible to take more active measures. The fact that this requires manpower and money is no reason not to do so. Facebook's responsibility for its own advertising platform is too great and the false advertisements have too much impact.
Facebook will not be required to ban the advertisers permanently. According to the preliminary relief judge, that requirement is too far-reaching.
If Facebook fails to comply with the court's ruling, it may be subject to a penalty of up to €1.1 million.
