Meta Removes Ads For Social Media Addiction Litigation (axios.com)
- Reference: 0181510652
- News link: https://meta.slashdot.org/story/26/04/10/0113243/meta-removes-ads-for-social-media-addiction-litigation
- Source link: https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads
> Axios has identified more than a dozen such ads that were deactivated today, some of which came from large national firms like Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law. Almost all of them ran on both Facebook and Instagram. Some also appeared on Threads and Messenger, plus Meta's Audience Network -- which distributes ads to thousands of third-party sites.
>
> One such ad read: "Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren't just teenage phases -- they're symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway." A few of the ads still remain active, including some that were posted earlier today.
"We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."
[1] https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads
[2] https://meta.slashdot.org/story/26/03/25/1745232/meta-and-youtube-found-negligent-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-case
Seems fair (Score:4, Interesting)
Meta's free to decide what ads it wants to run. They're a commercial platform so it's not a free speech issue, although I suspect some will try to frame it as one. Blocking the lawyers ironically can help them since now they are getting press about the lawsuits and can trumpet "10 reasons Meta doesn't want you to know your being harmed. Number 5 will amaze you."
It's a free speech issue, but not a 1A isssue (Score:2)
No, it is a free speech issue. But it's likely not a 1st amendment issue. There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point, but they are not the same thing. Free speech is the concept that people have the right to speak their minds. This is infringed because there is a limited number of big media companies that control the conversation. The first amendment is a restriction on the government to not pass laws infringing on free speech. This is a prime example of a free speech issue in the private sector as
Difficult to know who the bad guy is (Score:2)
It's difficult to figure out who's the worse party in this, the blood sucking lawyers or the blood sucking social media companies.
Whoever wins, we still lose.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that Meta is a blood sucking entity, and you even admit that. Your assumption that lawyers who represent clients that seek redress for known wrongs are "blood suckers" just shows your bias against lawyers. Some lawyers are blood suckers, but all "Metas" are blood suckers, and calling a lawyer that represents a truly wronged party a "blood sucker" is absurd.
Free Speech (Score:2)
If you want to present yourself as a friendly social media platform so you can digitally rape 'suckers' and monetize their data, this may not be a legal issue of free speech, but it is a PR issue of free speech.
If it works, you're showing people your platform's ability and willingness to control the message. If it doesn't, you're showing your weakness.
A legal but over-righteous stance (Score:2)
> We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful.
This isn't the burn they want you to think it is. It's like saying that a bar isn't a good place to find alcoholics that need help because you might increase the bar's profits. On the other hand, bars have every right to tell people from AA to take a hike, just don't expect us to respect them for doing so.
Bad Logic (Score:4, Informative)
"We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."
Why not? That's where all the harmed people are.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You don't go looking for peaches in a pineapple field.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads for Wegovy on Internet-connected refrigerators.
I'm impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't know that there was a class of ads that facebook wouldn't touch; they are [1]legendarily flexible [reuters.com] so long as the advertiser is paying.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampant-ad-fraud-china-safeguard-billions-revenue-2025-12-15/
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key. The law firms probably aren't paying for the higher tier now.
Finally... (Score:2)
we found a genre of ads that even Facebook wouldn't run. I wonder if Elmo's Xitter will follow suit.
This is why I say... (Score:2)
"When a new innovation becomes, in effect, societal infrastructure, it should be removed from private ownership and become part of the commons". It's less relevant now, but for many years it was highly inconvenient to fully participate in society without a Facebook. Everybody just expected to connect with me on FB, and a lot of events I was interested in were only posted there.
And take a look at the ad-and-spying-riddled shit-fest Google search has become - but imagine day-to-day life without search engines
Re: (Score:2)
> it should be removed from private ownership and become part of the commons
An interesting idea. But it seems pretty socialist. And risks alienating the Left when it is pointed out that this will guarantee the Right wing their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.
No more: "Just go build your own social media board."
Shouldn't they prioritize scam ads? (Score:2)
If they are able to remove ads like this, shouldn't they remove fake celebrity endorsement ads instead? Just removing all ads for crypto and non-mainstream investments should go a long way to fix that...
Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
My question is; who authorized those ads in the first place? How fired is the dipshit former Meta employee that ran ads that seek to destroy Meta?
Re:Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Informative)
Depends. If Meta has a defacto monopoly on ads in its social media ecosystem, then it's not reasonable for it to censor ads directly attacking it.
Re: Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:2)
Just because they're the only source of ads on their platforms doesn't mean it's a monopoly though, ex: Apple.
So Meta doesn't have a defact of Monopoly (Score:2)
Because on paper the barrier to entry for social media is very low. It's literally just a website.
Now the trouble with that is we don't enforce antitrust law so Meta can just buy up any potential competitor and that's exactly what they do. Now if they can't buy a competitor they will use other means, but if you try to prove that they are a monopoly then they're going to argue that the barrier to entry in their industry is low and therefore they couldn't possibly be a monopoly.
It can be really hard t
Re: (Score:2)
> I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
> My question is; who authorized those ads in the first place? How fired is the dipshit former Meta employee that ran ads that seek to destroy Meta?
Optics and legal exposure. This is going to be evidence in every trial they face. At a stretch, it might even be called witness tampering.
Re:Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like there's a guy who's moderating the ads?
I've previously reported any amount of utterly illegal, misleading, out-right lies, etc. ads on Facebook in the past and nobody cares. They take your report and then a month later they tell you that they found no violation.
The only moderation they do for advertisers is "Enter your credit card details".
It's kind of the reason they're in this mess in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree with the rationale for the blocking; no sane company is going to willingly publish info that could harm them. Can't really argue with that at all; their site, their rules, and all that. What the First Amendment says about free speech is regarding the Government, not public entitiies like Meta, so they absolutely have the right to decline to provide these lawyers with an online megaphone and soapbox to stand on.
On your question though, it's quite likely no one authorized them. Assuming yo
Re: (Score:2)
> I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
Ideally, ad platforms wouldn't exist, because the whole point of them is to lie to people so they make shitty decisions. But barring that, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to serve ads related to malfeasance similar to that of which they have been found accountable in court.
Re: (Score:2)
> ad platforms wouldn't exist, because the whole point of them is to lie to people so they make shitty decisions
I disagree. I do not feel that the whole point of them is to lie. I feel that there are plenty of valid uses for advertising and its platforms that do not include misleading anyone or outright lies.
Spreading awareness of a product's existence, reminding people of products or companies(a.k.a. mindshare), keeping something front of mind for the moment that the consumer actually needs it... None of these scenarios require or even benefit from lies.
Re: Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:2)
All of that shit is like 1% of advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I ran ads on Meta before... it doesn't always requires a FB employee to approve. While Meta blatantly ignores reporting of violating ads such as prostitution, scamming, they actively deface ads that want to defeat features of their platform that the court already found guilty. All these ads pay Meta money the same way. So technically the firms that run these ads are Meta's customers. It's not allowed to deface ads that don't violate its existing policies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were a serial killer would you allow cops to investigate you, or would you kill the cops before they found out who you are if you could get away with it? The point isn't that Meta is doing something unexpected. The point is that Meta is a bad actor who will do whatever they can to continue to feed off of society and profit, and will go to (almost?) any lengths to stop anyone who might get in the way.