DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-15916 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involved a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) by a class of advertisers who claimed that Meta misrepresented the "Potential Reach" of advertisements on its platforms. The plaintiffs alleged that Meta falsely claimed that Potential Reach was an estimate of people, when in fact, it was an estimate of accounts.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying one class of advertisers (the damages class) who sought compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The court stated that the misrepresentation was a common issue for the class and that the district court properly determined that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide resolution.
However, the court vacated the district court's order certifying another class of advertisers (the injunction class) who sought injunctive relief. The court asked the lower court to reconsider whether the named plaintiff, Cain Maxwell, had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Class Certification. The panel affirmed the district court’s order certifying one class of advertisers who paid Meta Platforms, Inc.
(Meta) to place advertisements on its social media platforms—the damages class, and vacated the district court’s order certifying another class of advertisers—the injunction class.
The advertisers alleged that Meta fraudulently misrepresented the “Potential Reach” of advertisements on its platforms by stating that Potential Reach was an estimate of people, although it was actually an estimate of accounts.
The panel affirmed the district court’s certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of the damages class. The misrepresentation constituted a “common course of conduct” under the test for determining whether common issues predominate among the class. Given that all class members encountered the same misrepresentation about Potential Reach—the nucleus of the fraud—the slight variations in the other information available on the Ads Manager did not defeat the commonality of the misrepresentation. The district court properly determined that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide resolution. The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that the requirements of typicality and adequacy were satisfied. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) was satisfied.
The panel vacated the certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) injunction class for the district court to reconsider whether the named Plaintiff Cain Maxwell had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The district court had no occasion to consider the record or to analyze Meta’s argument against Maxwell’s standing to seek injunctive relief.
Dissenting in part, Judge Forrest agreed that the district court’s certification of the injunction class must be vacated and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether Plaintiff Cain Maxwell had standing to pursue that claim. She disagreed that the district court properly certified the damages class because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement where there were individual questions that must be answered related to multiple elements of Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.