Judge Tosses Ex-Arkansas Governor’s Suit Against Meta Over CBD Advertisement

A federal judge in Delaware on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee against social media giant Meta over advertisements using his name and image to sell CBD products.

Huckabee, a Baptist minister and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Israel, claimed Meta allowed and profited from the advertisements that falsely claimed he used and endorsed CBD gummies. CBD, or cannabidiol, is one the main active ingredients in marijuana but does not, by itself, provide the high caused by psychoactive THC.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argued that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Federal Communication Decency Act.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams rejected that claim. He concluded, however, that Huckabee, a political commentator and two-time presidential candidate, had failed to allege valid claims for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of Arkansas’ Publicity Protection Act.

Williams agreed with Huckabee that, in collecting user data and using algorithms to determine which posts and advertisements appeared at the top of users’ newsfeeds, Meta was an “information content provider” that was not immune from liability for the illegitimate ads.

The judge nevertheless determined that Huckabee failed to demonstrate that Meta knew the ads were fake, or that it was at least aware of facts and circumstances that would give rise to such knowledge. Huckabee’s assertion that Meta approved and maintained the ads with actual malice or reckless disregard for their truthfulness was merely a “mere conclusory statement,” Williams wrote.

“It is not reasonable to infer that Meta entertained serious doubts about the asserted advertisements since Governor Huckabee has publicly denounced marijuana,” the judge wrote. “There is no allegation that Meta was required to conduct ‘due diligence’ on the truth of the asserted advertisements. Even if there was, such requirement would be insufficient to infer malice.”