California’s Court of Appeals Rules that Meta Can't Evade Liability in Case Claiming Facebook’s Ad Tools Violate Users' Civil Rights
SAN FRANCISCO — California's First District Court of Appeal has ruled that Facebook can be sued for allegedly discriminating on the basis of gender and age, in violation of civil rights laws.
In the case Samantha Liapes et al., v. Facebook, Inc., the court of appeal ruled that a lower court had erred by holding that Facebook is immune from liability pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally indemnifies interactive websites from liability for third-party content. The Court of Appeal also found that the allegations were sufficient for the case to proceed on claims that Facebook’s ad targeting and delivery tools were discriminatory and aided and abetted discrimination by advertisers.
Facebook has created an advertising platform that allows companies to target advertisements to specific categories of users. Ms. Liapes claims that Facebook has designed and uses various tools — some with solicited advertiser input, and others without — that treat users disparately on the basis of protected characteristics, violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, to provide advertisements for insurance.
Ms. Liapes is a 48-year-old woman and regular Facebook user, who was interested in learning about insurance products via ads on her news feed. She was unable to apply for a quote and possibly obtain a policy because she could not view several life insurance ads posted on Facebook due to her age or gender.
California’s First District Court of Appeal decision aligns with the arguments made by Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California, and Upturn in an amicus brief. The groups argued that Facebook’s conduct was discriminatory and harmful, particularly given the insurance industry’s extensive history of discrimination against women, older people, and other marginalized groups.
“This is a watershed decision for online discrimination,” said David Brody, managing attorney for the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It is not acceptable to target and steer ads for important economic opportunities on the basis of protected characteristics like race or sex. This decision makes clear that algorithms and business models built on discrimination must change.”
“Consumers today rely on the internet, including online advertising, to access important economic opportunities, such as insurance products. Facebook advertises insurance opportunities directly to some users, in this case men and younger people, while illegally forcing other users, including women and older people, to make additional efforts to learn about those same opportunities,” said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney in the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “We’re glad that the ruling opens possible pathways for accountability against social media platforms.”
“If a tech company violates your rights, they should be held responsible just like a brick-and-mortar business would be,” said Jacob Snow, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “This important ruling reaffirms that tech companies are not immune from claims under decades-old civil rights laws. The targeted advertising at the core of Meta’s surveillance business model threatens to harm already marginalized communities, and this ruling confirms that courts should fully consider those claims.”
“No one should be denied insurance or other important services because of who they are,” said Amanda Goad, Audrey Irmas director of the LGBTQ, Gender & Reproductive Justice Project at the ACLU of Southern California. “We appreciate the court’s recognition of the harm that discriminatory ad targeting and delivery practices can cause to users like Ms. Liapes.”
“Civil rights laws protect people both online and offline,” said Mitra Ebadolahi, senior project director at Upturn. “Our research clearly shows how Facebook’s own actions contribute to discrimination in online advertising. It’s time Facebook faces civil rights liability for its discriminatory actions.”
The opinion is here: /cases/laipes-v-facebook-inc?document=Opinion
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Statement on House AI Task Force ReportACLU Statement on House AI Task Force Report
WASHINGTON — Today, the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) issued its final report, marking an important step in recognizing the serious risks of discrimination and bias posed by AI systems — particularly in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. The report recognizes that discrimination and bias may arise in AI systems due to their design, training data, or failures by end users. The report also investigates the complex considerations around deepfakes, open AI systems, and free speech, and urges Congress to pass narrow legislation to address concrete harms. In response to the House AI Task Force final report, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: “The ACLU commends the Task Force for recognizing that AI systems are harming people right now through discriminatory outcomes and supercharged surveillance. Curbing those abuses of AI is not a partisan issue, and more concrete action is needed to protect civil rights, while maintaining states’ authority to build on those protections. The Task Force is appropriately cautious when wrestling with issues around deepfakes, open-source AI, digital identity, and other issues, recognizing that legislators should consider a wide array of tailored tools to address real, not speculative, harms while respecting civil rights and civil liberties.” The House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report can be found here. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key ProtectionsACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key Protections
WASHINGTON — The Biden-Harris administration today released its National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence (AI), establishing guidelines for how the U.S. government uses AI in national security programs, such as counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and defense. The use of AI to automate and expand national security activities poses some of the greatest dangers to people’s lives and civil liberties. Agencies are increasingly exploring the use of AI in decisions about who to surveil, who to stop and search at the airport, who to add to government watchlists, and even who is a military target. While the government’s policy includes some important steps forward — such as requiring national security agencies to better track and assess their AI systems for risks and prohibiting a subset of dangerous AI uses — it falls far short in other critical areas, leaving glaring gaps with respect to independent oversight, transparency, notice, and redress. The policy imposes few substantive safeguards on a wide range of AI-driven activities, by and large allowing agencies to decide for themselves how to mitigate the risks posed by national security systems that have immense consequences for people’s lives and rights. As we have repeatedly seen before, this is a recipe for dangerous technologies to proliferate in secret. “Despite acknowledging the considerable risks of AI, this policy does not go nearly far enough to protect us from dangerous and unaccountable AI systems. National security agencies must not be left to police themselves as they increasingly subject people in the United States to powerful new technologies,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “If developing national security AI systems is an urgent priority for the country, then adopting critical rights and privacy safeguards is just as urgent. Without transparency, independent oversight, and built-in mechanisms for individuals to obtain accountability when AI systems err or fail, the policy’s safeguards are inadequate and place our civil rights and civil liberties at risk.” For years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been urging far stronger safeguards and transparency about the AI tools that national security agencies are deploying, the rules constraining their use, and the dangers these systems pose to fairness, privacy, and due process. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and VendorsACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and Vendors
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released a roadmap for artificial intelligence (AI) best practices, designed to ensure that emerging technologies such as AI enhance job quality, benefit workers, and comply with existing employment laws when they are used in the workplace. The best practices, pursuant to President Biden’s executive order on the development and use of AI, include recommendations for AI system developers and employers that prioritize workers’ experiences and empowerment throughout the entire AI lifecycle – from design to use and oversight. These practices also call on employers and developers to create standards and processes to identify and mitigate risks from AI systems, such as threats to health and safety, civil rights, privacy, fair labor rights, and labor organizing prior to a developer marketing them or an employer deploying them, and recommend turning to different systems when sufficient mitigation is not possible. “We applaud DOL for issuing best practices for use of AI that center workers’ empowerment, civil rights, privacy, and safety protections and call on developers and employers to adopt critical guardrails in developing, procuring and using AI systems. Employers and developers should take note, as many have been burying their heads in the sand on their risk of legal liability with respect to AI tools,” said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Following these best practices for AI can help employers and developers ensure that they do not violate existing civil rights and other employment laws that protect workers.” The best practices also recommend transparency measures through conducting and publishing impact assessments, notice and recourse for impacted workers, and measures to minimize worker displacement. The DOL also stated that employers should minimize electronic monitoring and avoid unnecessary collection or retention of worker data.