The Legal Risks of Targeted Ads: Lawyers Weigh In on Avoiding Anti-Discrimination Violations
A new suit against Facebook alleges the platform allowed advertisers to engage in housing discrimination. For platforms offering targeted ads, the suit is a warning to check advertiser policies and ad review processes.
April 02, 2019 at 04:26 PM
3 minute read
It's not unusual for platforms to allow targeted ads—companies want to reach interested consumers, and users may prefer ads that are relevant to them.
But a suit brought against Facebook Inc. by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on March 28 shows platforms allowing targeted ads may face increased legal risks if in-house counsel aren't monitoring advertiser posts or implementing guidelines, lawyers said.
HUD alleged Facebook's advertising platform was “encouraging, enabling, and causing housing discrimination” by allowing posters to exclude protected categories from seeing housing ads. On March 19, Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said the platform would no longer allow housing, employment or credit ads to target specific ages, gender or ZIP codes.
“There's no law out there that says you can't target your ads to a particular demographic for candy bars. But there are certain categories, such as housing, employment, where there are restrictions and those restrictions can be violated by the platforms that allow for these advertisements … if it appears that they're complicit,” said Nilesh Patel, an advertising and intellectual property attorney at Frost Brown Todd and former senior in-house counsel at Sprint Corp.
Keri Bruce, a partner in Reed Smith's entertainment and media industry group, said sometimes it makes sense to target ads to a specific gender or other category, if a product or service is specifically for them. She said in-house counsel should know what is being advertised on their platform, looking out for housing, employment or credit-related targeted posts.
If platforms allow advertisements for these categories, Aaron Wiener, an advertising attorney at Gordon Law Group in Chicago, said in-house counsel should ensure advertisers can't target or exclude protected categories, such as women and minorities.
“If you are advertising a certain category of advertisement then you perhaps reduce the type of targeting criteria you make available for those ads,” Bruce said.
She and Patel noted that platforms that don't limit targeting options may be relying on advertisers not to violate discrimination laws. Platforms should implement and publicly post guidelines about what targeted advertisement is allowed.
Even with these guidelines, Patel said platforms not reviewing targeted advertisements pre-posting are risking anti-discrimination violations.
“You're trusting that the advertiser is being accurate and truthful in the categories that they're selecting,” Patel said. “In an online world, if you don't have review processes in place you can put those restrictions in, but who is ultimately minding the shop?”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250