In a significant legal showdown, Meta Platforms is turning to the Supreme Court to challenge a Washington state law that mandates extensive disclosures for online political advertisements. The tech giant argues that the law is so burdensome it has effectively forced platforms like Meta and Google to cease political advertising in the state.
The legal battle stems from Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act which requires companies to provide detailed information about political ads, including costs, sponsors, targeted geolocations, and audience demographics. This law, initially passed in the 1970s and updated in 2018 following revelations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, aims to enhance transparency in political advertising.
Meta’s Legal Strategy and Arguments
Meta filed papers with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan requesting an extension to seek review of a decision by Washington’s highest court that upheld the state law. The company contends that the law’s mandates are so onerous that they have led to a complete ban on political ads in Washington. Meta is seeking to extend the deadline for seeking review from September 16 to November 15 a request that was granted on Thursday.
The company argues that the law violates the First Amendment by making it irrational and unworkable for digital platforms to carry political ads. Meta claims that the statute tips the scales against disempowered political actors who rely on low-cost digital advertising to reach voters. The company also asserts that the disclosure requirements are anything but narrowly tailored allowing anyone in the world to request information about any political ad at any time, with platforms required to respond within a very short period.
The Legal Battle: From State Courts to the Supreme Court
The legal saga began in 2020 when Governor Bob Ferguson then serving as attorney general, sued Meta for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements. Ferguson alleged that Meta sold hundreds of ads to at least 171 Washington state political committees but failed to provide the required information. In 2022, King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North ruled against Meta, finding that the company violated the state law 822 times. The judge fined Meta $30,000 per violation totaling nearly $25 million and ordered an additional $10.5 million payment to the attorney general’s office.
Meta appealed the decision, arguing that the law was overly burdensome and violated the First Amendment. However, a majority of the Washington court sided against Meta. Justice G. Helen Whitener wrote that while the disclosure law may impact Meta’s motivation to host political speech, it does not prevent the company from doing so.
The Broader Implications
Meta’s latest filing with Justice Kagan highlights the broader implications of the law. The company argues that the law tilts the playing field in favor of big-money campaigns and incumbents who can afford more expensive and traditional forms of advertising. This legal battle could set a precedent for how political advertising is regulated in the digital age, potentially influencing similar laws in other states.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court’s decision will be closely watched by tech companies, political campaigns, and advocates for transparency in political advertising. The outcome could shape the future of digital political advertising and the balance between transparency and free speech in the online realm.
