Judge files lawsuit against Meta over ads suggesting Huckabee endorses marijuana gummies

WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on Monday dismissed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s lawsuit against social media giant Meta over ads that used his name and image to sell CBD products.

Huckabee, a Baptist minister and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Israel, alleged that Meta authorized and profited from ads claiming to use and endorse CBD gummies. CBD, or cannabidiol, is one of the main active ingredients in marijuana, but it alone does not provide the high caused by the psychoactive THC.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argued that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams rejected that argument. But it concluded that Huckabee, a political commentator and two-time presidential candidate, had failed to establish valid claims for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of Arkansas’ Publicity Protection Act.

Williams agreed with Huckabee that Meta, while collecting user data and using algorithms to determine which posts and ads appear at the top of users’ news feeds, is an “informational content provider” that is not exempt from liability for illegitimate ads.

The judge nevertheless ruled that Huckabee failed to prove that Meta knew the ads were fake or was at least aware of the facts and circumstances that would give rise to such knowledge. Williams wrote that Huckabee’s claim that Meta approved and perpetuated the ads with actual malice or reckless disregard for their accuracy was merely “a mere statement of conclusion.”

“Because Governor Huckabee has publicly condemned marijuana, it is not reasonable to infer that Meta had serious doubts about the alleged ads,” the judge wrote. “There is no suggestion that Meta was required to conduct ‘due diligence’ regarding the authenticity of the alleged advertisements. Even if there were, this condition would not be sufficient to conclude that there was malicious intent.”