The High Court has refused to make temporary orders sought by a group of Italian companies after they were locked out of 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.
As well as complaining of the account-disabling, the companies also claim Meta unlawfully retained about €5 million in prepayments made by the plaintiffs for advertisement hosting.
Meta, the operator of Facebook and WhatsApp, is defending the action. It claims the Italian companies placed “scam ads” on behalf of their client on Meta platforms, in contravention of standards.
READ MORE
In October, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger heard an application brought by the companies seeking various interim reliefs ahead of a full hearing of the action, including an order compelling Meta to restore access to the accounts.
In a judgment published this week, Ms Justice Bolger said she was refusing the application for interim reliefs. She said the companies had not satisfied her their case would succeed at trial, and that the balance of justice did not favour granting the interim reliefs.
The judge said she was not satisfied the companies had established the alleged breach in the terms and conditions.
At the hearing for the interim relief, the companies submitted that the account-disabling paralysed their operations and threatened the viability of their business.
They submitted that they had established a “strong case” for the reliefs sought, and claimed that interim orders sought could prevent irreparable harm to their business, preserve their assets and maintain “the commercial status quo” pending a full hearing.
The companies claimed they had a contractual right to engage with Meta to resolve any difficulties arising prior to the disablement of their account. Ms Justice Bolger noted that the companies did not identify any specific representation confirming that right.
Meta disputed the companies’ submissions, and contended that the terms and conditions of the companies’ use of Meta’s platform for advertising permits disablement of the accounts without notice or engagement. Meta also submitted it was entitled to retain the prepayments.
Meta argued that companies delayed 204 days from when the accounts were disabled to the issuing of the application seeking interim relief, and submitted that the “status quo ... is what prevailed immediately before the commencement of proceedings”.
Lawyers for Meta exhibited screenshots of what they described as “scam ads” allegedly placed on their platforms by the companies for their clients. Meta said these ads contravened their standards.
The companies submitted that Meta produced no data to verify the nature, content or origin of the alleged “scam ads”.
The companies also argued that they are not responsible for the content of advertisements they place on Meta’s platforms for their clients. Ms Justice Bolger noted the companies offer no basis for this denial of responsibility.
Ms Justice Bolger said her provisional view was to adjourn the issue of costs to the full hearing of the case. The case returns later this month.
