字号·· | 护眼
日本时报

横滨法院驳回针对Meta虚假广告的诉讼Yokohama court dismisses suit against Meta over fake ads

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

横滨地方法院周四驳回了一起针对美国社交媒体巨头Meta Platforms及其日本子公司的损害赔偿诉讼,该诉讼涉及未经许可使用名人姓名和肖像的虚假广告。

The Yokohama District Court on Thursday dismissed a damages lawsuit against U.S. social media giant Meta Platforms and its Japanese unit over fake ads using the names and images of celebrities without permission.

横滨法院是日本六家地方法院受理的一系列类似诉讼中,第一个作出裁决的法院。

The court in Yokohama was the first to rule on a series of similar lawsuits filed with six district courts across Japan.

横滨诉讼由六名投资诈骗受害者和一家公司提起。他们计划对该裁决提出上诉。

The Yokohama lawsuit was filed by six investment fraud victims and one company. They plan to appeal the ruling.

原告要求总计约4300万日元的损害赔偿,声称Meta知道其社交媒体平台(包括Facebook)上充斥着虚假广告,本可以轻易将其删除,却任其留在网上,导致人们成为诈骗受害者。

The plaintiffs demanded a total of about ¥43 million in damages, claiming that Meta was aware that fake ads were rampant on its social media platforms, including Facebook, and could have easily removed them, but left them online, allowing people to fall victim to scams.

然而,法院认为,难以认定Meta在广告发布时能轻易识别出这些广告是欺诈性和虚假的。

However, the court found that it was difficult to conclude that Meta could have easily recognized the ads as fraudulent and fake at the time of their publication.

法院并未承认,Meta在2023年4月至11月期间原告查看广告时,已收到表明这些广告为虚假的信息,也未承认日本企业家前泽友作和堀江贵文曾要求删除使用其姓名的广告。

The court did not acknowledge that Meta had received information indicating that the ads were fake when the plaintiffs viewed them between April and November 2023, or that Japanese entrepreneurs Yusaku Maezawa and Takafumi Horie had demanded the deletion of ads using their names.

“Meta不一定有义务调查核实广告的真实性,并防止其出现在Facebook等平台上,”主审法师高木胜美说。

“Meta was not necessarily obliged to investigate and verify the truthfulness of the ads and prevent them from appearing on Facebook and other platforms,” presiding Judge Katsumi Takagi said.

周四晚些时候,在横滨举行的新闻发布会上,原告律师白田贵子称法院的决定“不公正”,并表示这“纵容了虚假广告的泛滥,可能导致通过社交媒体的投资诈骗造成进一步的伤害”。

At a news conference in Yokohama later on Thursday, Takako Shirota, an attorney for the plaintiffs, called the court decision “unjust” and said it “condones the proliferation of fake ads and could lead to further harm from investment fraud through social media.”