Facebook Can Be Sued Over Biased Ad Algorithm, Says Court (theverge.com) 78
Emma Roth reporting via The Verge: Facebook can be sued over allegations that its advertising algorithm is discriminatory, a California state court of appeals ruled last week. The decision stems from a class action lawsuit filed against Facebook in 2020, which accused the company of not showing insurance ads to women and older people in violation of civil rights laws. The case centers around Samantha Liapes, a 48-year-old woman who turned to Facebook to find an insurance provider. The lawsuit alleges that Facebook's ad delivery system didn't show Liapes ads for insurance due to her age and gender.
In a September 21st ruling, the appeals court reversed a previous decision that said Section 230 (which protects online platforms from legal liability if users post illegal content) shields Facebook from accountability. The appeals court concluded that the case "adequately" alleges that Facebook "knew insurance advertisers intentionally targeted its ads based on users' age and gender" in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It also found significant similarities between Facebook's ad platform and Roommates.com, a service that exceeded the protections of Section 230 by including dropdown menus with options that allowed for discrimination. "There is little difference with Facebook's ad tools" and their targeting capabilities, the court concluded. "Facebook does not merely proliferate and disseminate content as a publisher ... it creates, shapes, or develops content" with the tools.
In a September 21st ruling, the appeals court reversed a previous decision that said Section 230 (which protects online platforms from legal liability if users post illegal content) shields Facebook from accountability. The appeals court concluded that the case "adequately" alleges that Facebook "knew insurance advertisers intentionally targeted its ads based on users' age and gender" in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It also found significant similarities between Facebook's ad platform and Roommates.com, a service that exceeded the protections of Section 230 by including dropdown menus with options that allowed for discrimination. "There is little difference with Facebook's ad tools" and their targeting capabilities, the court concluded. "Facebook does not merely proliferate and disseminate content as a publisher ... it creates, shapes, or develops content" with the tools.
Someone did what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone did what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I can see this. Some people live in Facebook, not realizing it can be a cesspool of misinformation along with pictures of your grandkids. Using Facebook to hope to get the right kind of ads is like driving down the Interstate hoping the billboards along the way will advertise exactly what you're looking for.
Targeted advertising is a high risk venture. I once looked for an image of hip waders on Google to post in a work chat as a joke, implying that the project was going to get us deep in unpleasant goo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same questions I had. Doesn't make sense as far as a normal interaction should go. Can't wrap my head around this.
My thought too. What was the process? "I need insurance, I'll wander around FB until I see a appealing ad and click on that?" I mean, if she searched Google for insurance and didn't get any links, that might be an issue, but $5 says Google absolutely does not do that.
Side note: I used FB for a number of years and one day looked at my wife's browser. That was the first time I realized FB had ads. AdBlock did such a good job of removing them I had no clue they were there. Good times, good times. Now I just do
Re:Someone did what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like something she went hunting for with foresight. I just can't wrap my mind around how this scenario happens. Like how do you even go searching for Facebook ads? Are their marketplace classified ads targeted? How does one notice they aren't being passively advertised to? Why would anyone use Facebook to search for insurance? What am I missing?
To quote Eddie Murphy, someone is 'looking to get paid'.....
Re:Someone did what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I interpreted this slightly differently. The appeals court basically said nothing in Section 230 shields Facebook from being sued over this issue. It does not imply that FB is doing anything wrong by this ruling, but it does allow Samantha Liapes to bring the issue to trial.
Ms Liapes seems to think that by NOT targeting her for a certain group or type of advertisement is discriminatory. This would be similar to me claiming discrimination that I am not receiving ads for feminine hygiene products or newborn diapers. FB is targeting certain individuals based on the statistical likelihood that a particular person might be interested in a certain product. If I liked posts about the artist Bob Ross, then I might expect to see ads about painting supplies. If I have my current occupation as "software engineer" I might expect to see ads about computer technology. NOT sending me ads about horse dressage supplies should not be considered discrimination if I have nothing to indicate I have any interest in the subject.
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand the issue.
Facebook isn't targeting people based on who it thinks will click. It's the advertisers who are illegally targeting specific protected classes of users and excluding others using the filtering tools that Facebook provides. The lawsuit is over insurance, but this has also come up with housing and other classes of discriminitory conduct.
The advertisers want to target profitable classes of individuals, and ignore unprofitable classes. Men are cheaper to insure than women, so if they
Re: (Score:2)
We have a similar thing in Europe. Insurers can't consider certain factors like gender when offering insurance. The odd thing here is that women usually pay less for insurance, not more, so it's likely that the ads were trying to rip off younger guys whose premiums are typically higher.
Facebook has been here before, with job ads that excluded non-white people and women.
They have this ads thing backwards (Score:1)
Uhh, wha??? (Score:4, Insightful)
The case centers around Samantha Liapes, a 48-year-old woman who turned to Facebook to find an insurance provider.
And from TFA: “There is little difference with Facebook’s ad tools” and their targeting capabilities, the court concluded. “Facebook does not merely proliferate and disseminate content as a publisher ... it creates, shapes, or develops content” with the tools."
Okay, that part I agree with, Facebook and other algorithmic "platforms" are not neutral publishers in any sense of the word (nor should they qualify for Section 230 immunity, IMHO, but that's a different topic) but who the fuck turns to Facebook to find an insurance provider? Not only Facebook, but Facebook ads? Particularly someone in their late 40s that's old enough to remember phone books, TV commercials, the local independent insurance agent, and fucking Google for that matter.
This smells like plaintiff shopping to conjure up a lawsuit against Facebook. All the actual shit they do wrong and this is what the State of California wants to spend taxpayer dollars on? I fucking despite Facebook, I'm not entirely convinced Mark Zuckerbergis human (watch the end of Team America [youtube.com] for what I suspect would happen if someone killed his host body), but for heaven's sake, you can download their profile of yourself and see all the attributes they've associated with you. I guarantee if she had spent more than zero time looking for insurance on their platform she'd have been drowning in ads for insurance products.
Next up, the State of California sues on behalf of a virgin, in a bunch of celibacy groups, upset they're not getting ads for condoms.
Re:Uhh, wha??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's extremely unlikely to have anything to do with her gender and far more likely to come down her having limited or no engagement with insurance companies on their platform or any of the countless insurance websites with Facebook trackers on them. Follow State Farm, Progressive, and GEICO, like a few of their posts, and I promise you’ll be drowning in ads for insurance before the week is out.
There might be some validity to the notion that Facebook isn’t steering older users to insurance ad
I know reading is hard (Score:1)
Re:Uhh, wha??? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's extremely unlikely to have anything to do with her gender and far more likely to come down her having limited or no engagement with insurance companies on their platform
Then let Facebook prove that in court. We'll see what evidence they provide.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She has to show on the balance of probabilities, not prove. It's a civil case, not criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If insurance companies only advertised to people who "engaged" with them, they wouldn't get a lot of clicks. They target people they think need insurance, because they likely own a car or a house... And because statistically, men are more likely to take it out than women.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not clear whether you're saying that Facebook shouldn't qualify for section 230 because they're not neutral, but, if you are, neutrality is not a requirement for section 230 [eff.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I agree about the section 230 immunity how is this a case against facebook. The insurance providers set the criteria of age and sex that they wanted so they should be the ones sued.
This is like sueing whoever shows football on TV because it watched by more men, when it would be the companies who looked at the demographics and picked that show to advertise on.
Re: (Score:2)
One turns to facebook as the worm wriggling on the end of a suing lawyer's hook. No point in suing if you only collect one third of a tiny payout.
Not seeing any dating ads during my Facebook visit (Score:5, Funny)
Facebook must have concluded I'm a hopeless bloke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
230 needs to be updated not repealed.
It should protect online companies from their user's posts and removing spam, CP, and other obvious trash but not allow them to play manipulative editor. They try to play it both ways for far too long and now we see the results of their gaming the system.
Re: (Score:3)
230 needs to be updated not repealed.
It should protect online companies from their user's posts and removing spam, CP, and other obvious trash but not allow them to play manipulative editor. They try to play it both ways for far too long and now we see the results of their gaming the system.
I'm glad you think so. However, I'm the person who gets to determine if they're gaming the system, not you or anyone who thinks like you.
Now how do you like it?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. Congress and the courts do.
I like that a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. Congress and the courts do.
You know, I'm not a fan of how some entities put a thumb on the scale of public discourse, but your proposal has its own set of problems. Most notably, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Neither the legislature nor the courts have any business being an arbiter of speech.
Re: (Score:1)
230 has already been used to violate the 1a.
Feds call X/FB, tell them to ban someone. They do. 230 protects them. This is fact as determined by our courts.
How is my version worse? What I described was the original intent when the law was being discussed before the final vote. Unfortunately we ended up with the dark side version. All of 230 isn't bad but taken as a whole it has had some seriously negative consequences for free speech for real human beings. It has been used to shut down people of all p
Re: (Score:2)
230 has already been used to violate the 1a.
Feds call X/FB, tell them to ban someone. They do. 230 protects them. This is fact as determined by our courts.
While this is obviously a 1A violation on the part of the government, section 230 has absolutely no relationship to it. 230 says providers and users of information services shall not be deemed the publisher or speaker for any content provided by a third party, and protects them from civil liability. That's it. It doesn't give the FBI power to tell Facebook to ban anyone.
How is my version worse?
Saying congress should be the arbiter of how an information provider handles content on their service is obviously in conflict with the
Re: (Score:2)
230 becomes an issue when the Feds tell social media companies what to do because it protects them from being sued by their real human being victims. Without 230 protection all the people banned could sue and get subpoena power to find out the real reason for their ban, 1a violations, etc. 230 is critical to the Fed's 1a violation of thousands of people.
> Saying congress should be the arbiter of how an information provider handles content on their service is obviously in conflict with the first amendme
Re: (Score:2)
230 becomes an issue when the Feds tell social media companies what to do because it protects them from being sued by their real human being victims.
"Victims?" Seriously? If I don't like what you're saying and tell you to get out of my house, you're not a victim, you're a guest who is no longer welcome.
Without 230 protection all the people banned could sue and get subpoena power to find out the real reason for their ban,
I'd love to see the cause of action for "Facebook stopped providing me services that I wasn't paying for, anyway."
Congress has already gotten involved when they wrote 230 in the first place
This is not a take I expected to see from you. I thought you were on the conservative side of the aisle, more or less, b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a conservative. I'm a "mostly" libertarian.. Small elle. Card carrying party member Libertarians are fucking nuts. I avoid those people like the plague they are. They are extremists no different than the current far left or right.
Facebook doesn't provide services for free. The user is the product being sold at a high cost to advertisers and other unsavory types. They charge users in time, attention and privacy for services. Those things all have value or Facebook couldn't resell them. Comme
Re: (Score:2)
What's your worry? Slashdot died years ago. We merely dance on the corpse now.
Are advertisers required to waste money? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, because you don't want to be a big meanie.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
This is 2023.
Women have beards and penises, men get pregnant and breast feed.
Your ad campaign is transphobic. You are cancelled.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm selling whetstones for grinding axes. Looks like I've found my demographic!
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you hate trans people? Did a trans say hi to you on a bus or something and trigger you?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you on drugs? You seem confused.
Anyway "dumbass" isn't a protected category so one can target ads freely!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my little troll stalker friend, you are saying nothing, very loudly, as usual.
Please review our thread. Then take your meds and review it again.
I am not at all confused. You are just wrong, as usual. If you have nothing to say other than random fact free personal attack, don't bother. If you want to present an actual fact or even express an on topic opinion I'll be waiting.
But "axes grinding demographic", "confused", "dumbass", "on drugs" presents no point or argument. It's just noise.
Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my little troll stalker friend,
Oh it's you! I thought the post had a familiar ring of misplaced grievance about it, but I have little head for names. Funny you turn out to be the same person.
Re: (Score:2)
And again you come back to add nothing. Your standard MO.
Here's my original post here:
> This is 2023.
>
> Women have beards and penises, men get pregnant and breast feed.
>
> Your ad campaign is transphobic. You are cancelled.
Which part is incorrect? Please be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part is incorrect?
I didn't say it was incorrect, just that you had an axe to grind. But since you really want to know:
You are cancelled.
There you go. No matter how broad your interpretations, the OP has clearly not been cancelled. But before you plead hyperbole there are advertising campaigns right now in the real world targeting men for razors from the likes of Gillette (and I'm sure others, I didn't bother to check) and Gillette has manifestly not been "cancelled".
Targeting razor advertising to men
Re: (Score:1)
It's called a joke. Get over your big bad self. My god, you wasted how many posts on a mild snarky bit?
Jfc, dude, you need therapy. So easily triggered. Now I just feel bad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a joke.
Ah the last refuge of the desperate! I love your strategy though. I'm not axe grinding, see, tell me where I'm wrong. Well OK I was wrong, but it was a JOKE. Come on Dougal, lighten up!
Cool yes, it was a joke, one told to grind your particular axe. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that Facebook et al have an overt discrimination filter. Whereas a television ad or billboard or whatever may be engineered to appeal to a certain demographic, it is broadcast indiscriminately based on geographic location.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm running an ad campaign for men's razors you can bet your ass I want to only be targeting men. Are marketers required to waste money and throw ads out blindly?
Then you're a fool. Change your handles to pink plastic and you'll sell more razors to women than you ever would to men. Some percent of men have beards, and consequently don't use razors. Zero percent of women have beads, AND they shave their chins, legs, arms, back, stomach, breasts, ribs, fingers, toes, eyebrows, basically, everything below the ears is fair game.... not marketing razors to women is a terrible mistake.
If you can come up with a competitor to Nair that doesn't burn, you'll be the rich
I'd love to see the proof (Score:2)
What a missed opportunity! (Score:2)
Wrong approach. Totally wrong approach. You should sue for being targeted FOR the wrong reasons, not AGAINST. Sue them for showing you dating ads and pretend they accuse you of being unable to find a mate. Sue them for showing you only dating ads for women and accuse them of being homophobic. Sue them for showing you ads for male grooming products and accuse them of being transphobic.
That way, the only way for them to be safe is to never show any ads to anyone.
What I find interesting... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What about TV ads that target certain demographics?
What about them? If you tune into the channel, you'll get the ad regardless of any personal characteristics.
There's a big difference between making a passive decision based on who might be watching and making an active decision based on characteristics of you in particular.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, you don't have to put actual info into FB, they don't verify your age. What about life insurance and car insurance that descriminate against age? Medicare is designed so health
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they have channels like BET, so they can target specific ads to a certain demographic.
Nonetheless if I tune into BET as a pasty white guy, I get the same ads. They are based on assumed characteristics of the audience not, as I already said, the characteristics of you in particular.
Besides, you don't have to put actual info into FB
This is about antidiscrimination laws, I don't think "but you can simply lie to the person discriminating" is a valid defense for discrimination.
No, this is overreach
Pr
Obviously Bullshit (Score:2)
I have done FB ads for my romance book. You get to choose a demographics, which is not guaranteed, but strived for. I always choose women between 30-70 (or something like that). I mean why would I want to advertise my historical romance novel to 20-something year old males? If FB delivers what I want, it's not FB's fault! It's not even my fault! But to explain where this is coming from, from TFS:
The case centers around Samantha Liapes, a 48-year-old woman who turned to Facebook to find an insurance provider. The lawsuit alleges that Facebook's ad delivery system didn't show Liapes ads for insurance due to her age and gender.
So, discrimination based on sex and age is illegal. We all get that. But targeting people who would bring you the biggest bang for buck (younger people) as an insurance company is completely within the law. It's not like they rejected her based on her sex/age, because THAT may be discrimination.
Who looks for insurance on Facebook? (Score:2)
Seen everything (Score:1)
Are there actually, legitimately, people this stup (Score:1)
What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
I'm assuming that the insurance in question was life insurance. Life insurance (and other types of insurance) are allowed to use age and sex to set prices and availability of their product. Why wouldn't they be allowed to skew advertising to the groups that they actually sell a competitive product to?
And to a larger extent, advertising has long chosen venues that allow them to reach specific groups. Ever notice that there's a lot of Medicare-related commercials on Fox News, but not on Disney Channel?
It's too bad people can't be sued for stupidity (Score:2)