{"id":492,"date":"2026-01-26T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-26T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=492"},"modified":"2026-01-26T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-26T12:00:00","slug":"meta-judang-team-deceptive-advertising-scheme-meta-platforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=492","title":{"rendered":"Meta Platforms v. Judang Team \u2014 N.D. Cal. lets Meta\u2019s suit against alleged deceptive ad scheme defendants proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Judang Team LLC, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-26<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-05156<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Meta Platforms breach of contract; Facebook\/Instagram\/WhatsApp Terms of Service; deceptive advertising; advertising credit fraud; CFAA; California UCL; Lanham Act<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Meta Platforms, Inc. \u2014 owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp \u2014 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 Li\u00e9vano (the founder and sole member of Judang and Perfeos). Meta alleges the defendants operated an interconnected deceptive and misleading advertising scheme on Meta\u2019s social media platforms and improperly obtained advertising credit lines from Meta in violation of Meta\u2019s Terms of Service and various federal and state laws.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the motion to dismiss in full.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Defendants\u2019 specific arguments \u2014 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 \u2014 were rejected. The court found Meta had pleaded enough facts about each defendant\u2019s role and the interconnected nature of the alleged scheme to support each claim. Li\u00e9vano\u2019s personal involvement as founder, sole member, and operating force across the entities supported the individual claims against him.<\/p>\n

The case will proceed to discovery, with all of Meta\u2019s claims surviving the motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n