4 ms·

There actually are a fair number of burdens placed on advertisers w.r.t. the content of their ads. Ads are not covered by the usual "safe harbor" rules that se

There actually are a fair number of burdens placed on advertisers w.r.t. the content of their ads. Ads are not covered by the usual "safe harbor" rules that service providers are used to operating under. For example, Facebook actually can't legally permit ads that show products falsely claiming health benefits. If they're caught doing it, they're open to legal liability and their best response is to immediately discontinue as soon as they know about it. Other online ad providers actually go through varying amount of work to try and make sure they don't get caught here. This is just part of the operating cost of being a big ad provider. Either you spend lots of money avoiding the bad ads (difficult) or you lose money to lawsuits for letting them through (damaging).

nkrisc 7y ago
But this isn't about the content of the ads at all. The lawsuit is in relation to some Ohio law that says vendors can't sell to insolvent or nearly-insolvent firms, claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. Not trying to absolve Facebook of guilt. If they do business in Ohio they should follow Ohio law.
- vkou 7y ago
  > The lawsuit is in relation to some Ohio law that says vendors can't sell to insolvent or nearly-insolvent firms, claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. Simple solution: If you're buying ad inventory in Ohio, Facebook should ask you to check a box that confirms you're not insolvent. Had they done that, they'd have a pretty good ass-cover for this kind of lawsuit. "We didn't ask" is not a great defense. "They defrauded us" is a much better one. Each state has its own laws, much like how each country has its own laws. It's on a multinational company to comply with all of them... Or not do business.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I'm not super familiar with the specifics of the law, but often times these sorts of guards are considered empty gestures - banks can't avoid checking the providence of large transfers by exposing a "Check here if you aren't laundering money" checkbox, it's on facebook to adhere to these laws since they've chosen to participate in that market - they certainly weren't forced to offer advertisement hosting in Ohio, they chose to pursue that.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    If they haven't done something like that already I'm sure they will soon. The argument being made "Facebook should have known" seems silly on the surface but the law's the law. I'm sure they'll find the absolute minimum way to remain compliant going forward.
    - olliej 7y ago
      “They should have known” - I suspect the argument will be similar to patent law in that “if anyone at the company knew, the company itself knew knew”, coupled with the news of the insolvency, etc being posted on facebook. The argument that they shouldn’t have to vet ads is clearly nonsense: if you are selling ad space you are required to adhere to advertising standards. In this state at least it sounds like those standards include not selling ads to companies in extreme financial distress. The fact that FB is trying to lower costs for ads by not following the law is kind of irrelevant.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. The lawsuit doesn't claim that "somehow Facebook should have known." It claims that Facebook actually knew. Big difference.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    I was loose and colloquial with my phrasing. You can tell I'm not a lawyer.
  - LeifCarrotson 7y ago
    The lawyer for the schools claims that Facebook must have known because comments were posted on Facebook to that effect: > “Facebook knew what was going on,” said Ellen Kramer, the lead attorney hired by the school districts. “There was all sorts of stuff being posted about the demise of ECOT on Facebook and yet they still took this money. So Facebook knew or should have known of the financial difficulties ECOT was experiencing at the time they accepted the payments.” I don't expect Facebook to use opinions posted on its site to determine facts about its business dealings. It would be one thing if Facebook Payments found that ECOT's bank was no longer willing to pay out of their account, and accepted ECOT's office building in exchange for running ads, or if they're working on a credit basis and learned that ECOT's FICO scores had tanked. It's completely different if they're supposed to read news articles or worse, forum comments to make an estimation of their customer's financial solvency.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Yes, I gave an example of burdens advertisers face, but as I lead the post with: there are many.

nkrisc 7y ago

But this isn't about the content of the ads at all. The lawsuit is in relation to some Ohio law that says vendors can't sell to insolvent or nearly-insolvent firms, claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. Not trying to absolve Facebook of guilt. If they do business in Ohio they should follow Ohio law.

vkou 7y ago
> The lawsuit is in relation to some Ohio law that says vendors can't sell to insolvent or nearly-insolvent firms, claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. Simple solution: If you're buying ad inventory in Ohio, Facebook should ask you to check a box that confirms you're not insolvent. Had they done that, they'd have a pretty good ass-cover for this kind of lawsuit. "We didn't ask" is not a great defense. "They defrauded us" is a much better one. Each state has its own laws, much like how each country has its own laws. It's on a multinational company to comply with all of them... Or not do business.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I'm not super familiar with the specifics of the law, but often times these sorts of guards are considered empty gestures - banks can't avoid checking the providence of large transfers by exposing a "Check here if you aren't laundering money" checkbox, it's on facebook to adhere to these laws since they've chosen to participate in that market - they certainly weren't forced to offer advertisement hosting in Ohio, they chose to pursue that.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  If they haven't done something like that already I'm sure they will soon. The argument being made "Facebook should have known" seems silly on the surface but the law's the law. I'm sure they'll find the absolute minimum way to remain compliant going forward.
  - olliej 7y ago
    “They should have known” - I suspect the argument will be similar to patent law in that “if anyone at the company knew, the company itself knew knew”, coupled with the news of the insolvency, etc being posted on facebook. The argument that they shouldn’t have to vet ads is clearly nonsense: if you are selling ad space you are required to adhere to advertising standards. In this state at least it sounds like those standards include not selling ads to companies in extreme financial distress. The fact that FB is trying to lower costs for ads by not following the law is kind of irrelevant.
reaperducer 7y ago
claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money. The lawsuit doesn't claim that "somehow Facebook should have known." It claims that Facebook actually knew. Big difference.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  I was loose and colloquial with my phrasing. You can tell I'm not a lawyer.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  The lawyer for the schools claims that Facebook must have known because comments were posted on Facebook to that effect: > “Facebook knew what was going on,” said Ellen Kramer, the lead attorney hired by the school districts. “There was all sorts of stuff being posted about the demise of ECOT on Facebook and yet they still took this money. So Facebook knew or should have known of the financial difficulties ECOT was experiencing at the time they accepted the payments.” I don't expect Facebook to use opinions posted on its site to determine facts about its business dealings. It would be one thing if Facebook Payments found that ECOT's bank was no longer willing to pay out of their account, and accepted ECOT's office building in exchange for running ads, or if they're working on a credit basis and learned that ECOT's FICO scores had tanked. It's completely different if they're supposed to read news articles or worse, forum comments to make an estimation of their customer's financial solvency.
KirinDave 7y ago
Yes, I gave an example of burdens advertisers face, but as I lead the post with: there are many.