Facebook may have to overhaul its entire ad-targeting system after a California court ruled last month that the platform’s practice of routinely targeting ads by age, gender, and other protected categories violates a state anti-discrimination law.
The decision came after a 48-year-old Facebook user, Samantha Liapes, fought for years to prove that Facebook had discriminated against her as an older woman using the platform’s ad-targeting system to shop for life insurance policies.
Liapes filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in 2020. In her complaint, Liapes alleged that “Facebook requires all advertisers to choose the age and gender of its users who will receive ads, and companies offering insurance products routinely tell it to not send their ads to women or older people.” Further, she alleged that Facebook’s ad-delivery algorithm magnifies the problem by using these required inputs to serve the ads to “lookalike audiences.” Through its algorithm, Liapes alleged that she found that Facebook “discriminates against women and older people,” by intentionally excluding them from seeing certain life insurance ads.
This, Liapes alleged, caused harm by preventing her from signing up for deals that “often change and may expire”—deals which she said were disproportionately being advertised on Facebook to younger and/or male audiences. As evidence, Liapes pointed to ads that Facebook did not serve to her—allegedly because advertisers used the platform’s Audience Selection and Lookalike Audience tools to exclude her—as an older woman:
Liapes identified a life insurance ad that was only sent to males ages 30 to 49 because the advertiser used the Audience Selection tool. In another instance, a life insurance ad was not shown to her because it was only sent to people ages 25 to 45—based on the advertiser’s use of the Audience Selection tool—and because the advertiser wanted to reach people similar to its customers—based on the advertiser’s use of the Lookalike Audience tool.
“As a result, she had a harder time learning about those products or services,” Liapes’ complaint alleged.
Facebook argued that its tools are neutral and claimed that Liapes’ complaint omitted evidence showing all the ads that she was served—suggesting that Liapes may have been shown different versions of ads that she claimed the platform had excluded her from seeing. Facebook also claimed it was possible Liapes was shown ads advertising better deals, negating any harm caused. But the court in September disagreed with Facebook’s arguments, finding that Liapes sufficiently stated a valid discrimination claim.
Liapes had asked the court to find that Facebook’s tools violate California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits “businesses from discriminating against people with protected characteristics, such as gender and age.” The law “is intended to eradicate arbitrary, invidious discrimination in business establishments” by “protecting each person’s inherent right to ‘full and equal’ access to ‘all business establishments,'” the court’s ruling said.
“Construing the complaint liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the asserted claims, Liapes has stated an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim,” the court ruled. “Facebook qualifies as a business establishment. And it does not dispute women and older people were categorically excluded from receiving various insurance ads—an admitted service of Facebook—on its platform.”
Liapes’ lawyer and Facebook did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.
