Meta’s favorite legal defense, that it’s just a neutral host of other people’s content, took a serious hit in a Frankfurt courtroom this month. A regional court ruled that when a platform uses its own algorithm to decide which ad reaches which user, it stops being a passive middleman and becomes an active participant. That changes everything about who pays when things go wrong.
The case centers on Thomas Kehl, a well-known figure at German personal finance platform Finanzfluss. For months, scammers used Kehl’s name, photos, and at least one deepfake video to run fake investment ads on Instagram and Facebook. Those ads pushed users into WhatsApp groups where the scheme continued, and where real people lost real money. As Android Headlines reported, the Frankfurt regional court ordered Meta on September 16th to stop the practice, hand over information about the fake accounts, and pay damages under case number 2-06 O 234/25.
What makes this ruling significant isn’t the outcome alone. It’s the reasoning. Finanzfluss had done everything Meta tells victims to do. They filed reference images through the Brand Rights Protection Tool, reported around 256 violations in a single month, and assigned a full-time employee just to monitor for fake profiles. Still, some reports sat open for 14, 20, or even 62 days before the content came down. New fake accounts appeared almost daily.
The court’s conclusion was direct: Meta is not a passive host when it runs an advertising auction with criteria it sets itself. Its algorithm decides who sees what, and that active editorial role removes the liability shield that platforms have historically claimed under Article 6 of the Digital Services Act. The court also cited a June ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which found that algorithmic content distribution can strip a platform of its hosting exemption. Meta, under this logic, is a perpetrator, not an intermediary.
The ruling has some important limits worth noting. It applies specifically to platforms that rank content algorithmically. Chronological feeds, like those on Mastodon or Bluekey, are explicitly exempt. The court is essentially saying: if you choose to sort and target content, you own the consequences of that choice.
There are also limits on who benefits. The case was brought by people whose identities were stolen, not by investors who lost money in the WhatsApp groups. Those victims still have to pursue the scammers directly. But the ruling does cover similar fake profiles, including accounts using Kehl’s name with added numbers or special characters, so not every copycat account requires a separate lawsuit.
Further violations could cost Meta up to 250,000 euros each. The company can appeal to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, and the algorithmic control question could eventually reach Germany’s Federal Court of Justice. But right now, the message is clear: running a targeting engine and profiting from ads means you don’t get to walk away when those ads are fraud.