US court rules Meta failed to preserve key evidence in Andrew Forrest legal dispute
A US federal judge ruled Meta destroyed critical evidence in Andrew Forrest's lawsuit over fake crypto ads using his image, calling it gross negligence that could reshape social media accountability worldwide
TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION
A United States federal court has ruled against Meta in a landmark decision that could reshape how social media platforms are held accountable for scam advertisements, finding the tech giant failed to preserve critical evidence in its long-running legal battle with Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest.
The ruling, handed down on August 10 by Judge P. Casey Pitts in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, determined that Meta did not adequately retain electronically stored information that should have been preserved in anticipation of legal proceedings, including final versions of the scam advertisements shown to victims. The judge found that Meta's actions constituted "gross negligence" in destroying or allowing essential data to be erased, causing significant prejudice to Forrest's case, though no intent to harm was established.
Under US law, this spoliation of evidence means that if a jury determines during the trial that Meta acted with the intention of depriving Forrest of the information, they must presume that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the social media conglomerate. The court rejected Meta's claim that it needed two years to locate the data, emphasizing that the company should have anticipated the necessity to safeguard any information relevant to the case from the outset.
Andrew Forrest has been pursuing legal action against Meta since 2021 over deceptive advertisements on Facebook that exploit his image without authorization to promote fraudulent cryptocurrency and investment schemes. According to his legal representatives, these ads have "haunted" the mining tycoon for years, with thousands of misleading advertisements utilizing his likeness since 2019, leading to numerous victims who lost substantial sums of money.
Forrest's legal team contends that Meta's artificial intelligence systems actively optimized and tailored fraudulent advertisements before disseminating them, positioning the company as an active participant rather than just a passive platform. This argument challenges Meta's immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically protects internet companies from liability for user-generated content.
Meta has maintained throughout the proceedings that it was not responsible for the misleading promotional content, arguing that it did not create the scam advertisements and therefore should not be held liable for the resulting victims. However, Forrest's attorneys have characterized Meta's behavior in the legal matter as "evasive, duplicitous, and profoundly revealing," uncovering what they describe as a corporate culture that neglects proper procedures with minimal restraint.
The mining magnate's legal team stated: "The Court's sanctions deliver a clear message: [Meta] cannot destroy [or] lose evidence then use absence as a defense. The repercussions for these misdeeds must be borne by Meta, not by the victims of deceptive advertising." Forrest himself expressed appreciation for the ruling, saying his team has been working toward "correcting a huge injustice inflicted on society."
The court ruled that Forrest is entitled to recover legal fees and costs incurred up to the time of the ruling, and mandated that both parties engage in discussions regarding the amount to be awarded. This decision comes after Forrest has already spent an estimated $60 million on his California lawsuit, making it one of the most expensive private prosecutions in Australian legal history.
The ruling represents a significant victory in Forrest's broader campaign against Meta, which has included previous attempts at criminal prosecution in Australia that were discontinued in 2024 when prosecutors found insufficient evidence to continue. Despite that setback, his civil lawsuit in California has continued to gain momentum, with earlier court orders forcing Meta to explain how approximately 230,000 scam advertisements bearing Forrest's image ended up on its platforms.
This case has attracted significant attention beyond Australia, with implications for how social media platforms worldwide might be held responsible for scam content that appears on their services. The court's willingness to sanction Meta for evidence destruction sends a strong message to tech companies about their obligations to preserve relevant data once litigation is anticipated.
Forrest has also been pressuring local advertising bodies to take action, writing to IAB Australia in June 2026 asking the group to consider Meta's membership after revelations that the company made more than $20 billion from scams. The mining billionaire continues to push for the Australian Federal Government to "step in and demand accountability" from Meta regarding its operations in Australia.
All rights belong to their respective owners. This article contains references and insights based on publicly available information and sources. We do not claim ownership over any third party content mentioned.
DAILY WA © 2025
Daily WA Online is an independent news and media platform covering Western Australia. Owned by TMFS International Pty Ltd., we publish local stories, business insights, lifestyle features, and community voices for the digital era.
