Australian mining billionaire files lawsuit against Facebook over scam ads

My mom fell for a similar ad on Google for her computer. They got her to install a remote access tool but she managed to wise up before they got anything sensitive (aside from some payment, iirc).

I know it is a rats nest of jurisdictions and technological boundaries to track down people who are, I will admit, relatively small time scammers. The organizations capable of doing so often have much bigger fish to fry.

This is why I fully endorse making Google and FB liable. They are in a commercial arrangement with these scammers, and providing them access to clueless elderly folk who maybe should know better, but often don't.

That ad seems fair. The problem is apple the company is using a common word.

That last thing you want is ads to need to be approved by a Standards Council with appointees controlling advertising.

Same here in NL plenty of google searches for phone numbers, even of government institutions will turn up numbers owned by scammers. Usually these will connect you through to some tape that pretends you are nth in line to keep you hanging while they ding your account for the maximum rate per minute. The phone companies are in cahoots, they make tons of money of this too.

In a similar vein: Most of the adverts I see on Reddit are for very obvious Ponzi schemes. But I guess because they're "social media" and "disruptive" it's ok?

Doesn't Google and Facebook have manual reviews of ads places on their platforms? How does something like this get through?

> FB couldn't possibly claim its too hard or that there is no way that they could know.

I have always wondered how this is a defense. Surely it's just admitting you can't run your operation safely at scale and so shouldn't be running it at that scale in the first place?

There seems to be an expectation that scale is the most important thing, but if scale stops being managable or safe, why does that mean we just give up and let it grow?

If I made a fuel bowser that went so fast that fuel went all over the place, saying "Sorry, it's too fast to manage" isn't really a valid defense. I should slow down the fuel bowser.

If found guilty, I imagine it would set a precedent that opens the floodgates for a great many more to follow.

I don't know much about the AU legal system; if this were the US they would likely try to get the prosecutors to drop the case / settle out of court in exchange for a vague promise to do better.

Yeah cause the local politicians will jump onto the outrage and hammer fb with annoying regulations

How would being convicted of a criminal offence be insignificant for FB?

Yes it still 270k , that's a lot of lawyer hours and they might become open to the same penalties in other jurisdictions. If you calculate times 100nations and an increased volume plus the PR hit, it's best to delegate to legal.

If it were an Australian source, it may very well literally be that it was dictated by his publicist. Many Australian mining magnates are also part of a media cartel, and have financial interests against new media.

Well, it’s overreach, but only slightly. Facebook is not stopping obvious scams he has reported, so yeah - causing Facebook pain seems like a very good way to make them out systems into place that stop scammers.

If a billionaire wants to make Facebook’s costs go up, he will. And this particular billionaire is quite willing to spend a lot of money to make it happen. Makes him look good in Australia. There isn’t any downside for him.

The Wozniak court case was pursued in California, this case will be in Australia.

Why would a section of an American act have any bearing on an Australian legal case?