Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meta Platforms, Inc. — owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — sued Florida-based defendants Judang Team LLC (a self-described social media manager), Perfeos LLC (operator of shopatmars.com), Jot & Journeys (selling stationary products and energy drinks at jotandjourney.com), and Antonio Jose Liévano (the founder and sole member of Judang and Perfeos). Meta alleges the defendants operated an interconnected deceptive and misleading advertising scheme on Meta’s social media platforms and improperly obtained advertising credit lines from Meta in violation of Meta’s Terms of Service and various federal and state laws.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on multiple grounds, including that Meta had not adequately pleaded specific deceptive acts or alleged the necessary elements of each cause of action.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the motion to dismiss in full.
Meta plausibly alleged each cause of action, including breach of its Terms of Service (binding all defendants who created Meta-platform business and advertising accounts), violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California UCL violations, Lanham Act false-advertising claims, and related torts. The complaint described specific deceptive advertising practices, including misleading product representations and the obtaining of advertising credit through misrepresentations.
Defendants’ specific arguments — that the complaint did not adequately distinguish among the four defendants, that the alleged conduct did not breach the Terms of Service, and that the various federal and state-law claims were duplicative — were rejected. The court found Meta had pleaded enough facts about each defendant’s role and the interconnected nature of the alleged scheme to support each claim. Liévano’s personal involvement as founder, sole member, and operating force across the entities supported the individual claims against him.
The case will proceed to discovery, with all of Meta’s claims surviving the motion to dismiss.
Key Takeaways
- Meta and other major social media platforms can use breach of Terms of Service, CFAA, Lanham Act, and California UCL theories to pursue users who run alleged deceptive advertising schemes on the platforms.
- Allegations that an individual is the founder, sole member, or controlling force across multiple entities can sustain personal liability against the individual under both contract and tort theories.
- Allegations of obtaining advertising credit through misrepresentations are particularly significant — they may support both breach of contract and CFAA-style theories of unauthorized access or use.
- Defendants seeking to dismiss platform-vs-advertiser cases should focus on legal infirmities rather than fact-bound disputes about the nature of the advertising or the operations of the entity defendants.
Why It Matters
Meta and other social media platforms face an ongoing battle against deceptive advertising practices on their services, ranging from outright scams to misleading consumer-product advertising. When the platform itself is the plaintiff and the case alleges that defendants improperly obtained advertising credit, the suite of available legal theories is substantial — Terms of Service breach, CFAA, Lanham Act, UCL, and related state-law claims.
The decision is a useful template for how Meta and similar platforms can package these claims and survive Rule 12(b)(6) motions even when defendants are small or interconnected entities operated by a single individual. For advertisers and digital marketers, the case is a reminder that scaling deceptive practices on Meta’s platforms invites significant federal litigation exposure.