A number of related Italian companies are asking the High Court to make orders directing Facebook owner, Meta, to restore business accounts they used to provide online advertising services on Meta’s platforms.
BHBlasted Srl Societa Benefit, BHBroke Srl and BHN Ailed Srl claim Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd disabled their accounts in December 2024 without warning or explanation, and allegedly in breach of Meta’s own terms and conditions.
On Tuesday, counsel for the Italian companies moved an application for interim interlocutory relief ahead of a full hearing of the case. Meta is defending the action.
William Abrahamson SC, appearing with barrister Donnchadh Woulfe and instructed by Adams Law LLP, told Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger that Meta’s terms and conditions provide for the notification of account-holders of their suspension or termination in the event of a breach of policies or guidelines. The terms and conditions also provide that an opportunity be given to account-holders to remedy the breach, he submitted.
READ MORE
Mr Abrahamson said there was no suggestion that exceptions to this purported obligation applied in the case of his clients.
Counsel submitted that Meta was in “wholesale noncompliance” with its terms and conditions when there was an unadvertised shutdown of his clients’ accounts on December 21st, 2024.
Mr Abrahamson also submitted that the first time Meta identified why his clients’ accounts were closed was in affidavits sworn in the High Court proceedings. Meta claims that the Italian companies regularly and repeatedly published advertisements that violated terms and conditions, Mr Abrahamson said.
Counsel submitted the court should not consider exhibits of the purported offending advertisement because of a lack of information put before the court. He said it was not possible for his clients to say if the exhibited advertisements were published by his clients.
The court heard the Italian companies made prepayments to Meta for use of its services, namely the placing of advertisements on Meta platforms.
Mr Abrahamson said his client’s accounts were in credit by up to €6 million at the time the accounts were disabled. Counsel said this money is still held by Meta and his clients cannot access it. The court heard the credit figure was in dispute.
Kelley Smith, appearing with barrister Gerard Downey, for Meta, and instructed by A&L Goodbody, rejected the assertion that her client was obliged to give notice of a decision to suspend the Italian companies’ accounts.
She submitted that the terms and conditions referred to by Mr Abrahamson provide that Meta has an entitlement to remove accounts without warning, if they consider the accountholders’ breach to be serious.
Ms Smith said that her client’s position was that the Italian companies had not identified a legal entitlement for the reinstatement of a suspended account.
Ms Smith submitted that her client had sworn evidence before the court that offending advertisements exhibited to the court are related to the plaintiff’s accounts.
Ms Smith said her client is of the view that advertisements placed on Meta’s platforms by the Italian companies, whether for themselves or a third party client, contravened Meta’s standards. Her client’s wish to stop doing business with the companies is with a view to “protecting end users” of Meta platforms, she said.
Ms Smith also submitted that she did not see a basis on which the court could grant a permanent injunction in the case. Such an injunction would mean Meta is obliged to do business with the plaintiff companies, she said.
Ms Smith also said her client rejected the assertion that an explanation of the suspension was only offered during the course of the proceedings.
Ms Justice Bolger reserved her judgment.
