A German court holds Meta liable for scam ads on Facebook and Instagram
On September 16, 2026 the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court held Meta liable for fraudulent third-party ads on Facebook and Instagram. A personal-finance portal's trademark and its founder's name had been used in fake investment ads. In the court's view, a platform that ranks its feed algorithmically cannot hide behind a lack of knowledge. The ruling is not final.
A brand and its founder were impersonated, and the court put the liability on Meta
According to the press release the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court published on September 17, 2026, its 6th Civil Chamber (the competition chamber) ruled on September 16 in case 2-06 O 234/25 that Meta is liable for fake ads on Facebook and Instagram; Anadolu Agency reported the decision the same day. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the court release and in the Anadolu report: a company running a personal-finance portal with comparison tools and consumer finance advice, holding a registered word-and-image trademark, with more than 600,000 followers on Instagram and about 29,000 on Facebook, together with its founder and managing director, publicly known from finance videos and podcasts. The Next Web and German business press identify them as Finanzfluss and its founder Thomas Kehl. Unknown third parties had published ads and posts on Instagram and Facebook using the company's trademark and logo and the founder's name and photos, promoting financial investments through links in what appears to be a fraudulent scheme. German press reports from summer 2025 indicate the lawsuit was filed then; the September 16 judgment is the first-instance decision.
Nearly 260 reports, deletions taking up to 62 days, and the algorithm argument
In August 2024 alone the plaintiffs filed nearly 260 violation reports through Meta's reporting tool; even so, new publications with identical or equivalent content kept appearing, and Meta took up to 62 days to delete the reported fake ads. The court's orders fall under three headings: Meta must cease publishing and distributing the fake ads; Meta is liable for damages that arise in future from the distribution of equivalent fake ads, though no amount was fixed; and Meta must disclose information about the fake ads and the revenue it generated from them. The Next Web additionally reports a duty to search for similar copies once notified; that duty does not appear in the court release. In the court's view Meta cannot exonerate itself under the Digital Services Act by claiming it had no knowledge of the fake ads, because what users see is determined by Meta's algorithmic feed curation and by an automated ad auction that decides the ranking and timing of ads. The court contrasted this with purely chronological platforms and named Mastodon and BlueSky as examples. Its legal basis is a recently published judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which the court refers to as Webgroup and Coyote: a service provider that exercises control over content is liable in any case. The Next Web dates that CJEU ruling to June 16, 2026; the court release gives no date. The judgment is not final; an appeal to the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court is possible. The full text is to be published on the Hesse state case-law portal.
The passive-host defense was rejected because of algorithmic ranking
The decision matters because it touches the defense platforms have long relied on. When third-party content is at issue, platforms position themselves as passive intermediaries and argue that they carry no liability until notified. The Frankfurt court rejected that logic on the ground that the platform's own automated systems decide what users see and when and in what order ads appear: a system that ranks and times ads exercises control over content, and where there is control there is liability. The second point is the disclosure duty. Meta will have to reveal how much revenue it earned from the fake ads, which puts on the court record that scam ads are a source of income for the platform too. Third, the compensation duty looks forward: if equivalent fake ads appear again, the resulting damages fall on Meta. Meta's reaction is reported by The Next Web alone: the company says it "respectfully disagrees" with the decision, is considering its next steps, and adds that it takes strong action against scam ads. The limits should be equally clear. None of the sources gives a damages amount, a fine figure or an enforcement timeline; the judgment comes from a court of first instance and may change on appeal.
The ruling is German and not final, but brands that keep report records gain leverage
Scam ads that impersonate a brand are a problem Turkish businesses advertising on Instagram and Facebook know well: a company's logo or a founder's face and name gets attached to fake investment or promotion offers. This ruling was issued in Germany, it is not final, and both the court release and the Anadolu Agency report speak of Germany alone; it has no direct effect in Türkiye, and its effect outside Germany is not addressed by the sources. Even so, two lessons apply today. First, the rejection of the passive-host defense on the ground of algorithmic ranking strengthens the hand of brands that report copycat ads. Second, the details that stand out in the court release are records: nearly 260 reports in one month, deletions taking up to 62 days, and a registered trademark. That these details appear in the reasoning shows the value of documenting reports by date and number. For a business in Türkiye facing copycat ads, the first step is to log every report with its date and the platform's response time; the second is to make sure the trademark is registered. Records strengthen a business's position in correspondence with the platform even if the matter never reaches a court.
The UNALSOFT view
Our reading is this: brand protection is an extension of ad management, not a separate legal matter. In our Google and Meta ad management work we treat three practices as routine: keeping the trademark registered, using Meta's brand rights reporting channel, and logging every fake account and fake ad report with its date, count and outcome. The Frankfurt ruling shows how much such records can one day matter in court; the report count and deletion times appear as concrete figures in the court release. We do not know how this ruling will reach Türkiye; we do know that a brand with records is better prepared in every scenario.
Sources
Frankfurt Regional Court press release (Hesse judiciary portal) · Anadolu Agency report · The Next Web report
Is your brand prepared for copycat ads?
Let's review your trademark registration, Meta brand rights reporting and report logs together. A short conversation is enough to start.