Source: The National Law Review

A Central District of California decision in Bouck v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-05194-RS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62626, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026), allowed plaintiffs’ claims to survive a motion to dismiss by accepting their allegations that Meta’s generative AI tools “literally generated” fraudulent images and text used in advertisements. The court reasoned that if the ads’ text or images were produced entirely by the platform’s algorithm — even if inspired by a user’s prompt — those outputs could be treated as the platform’s own creation rather than third-party content exempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The decision highlights the legal distinction between a platform “materially contributing to the creation” of content (which sounds like aiding-and-abetting and may require proof of knowledge or intent) and being the actual “creator” (which can give rise to direct liability, including Lanham Act false advertising claims, without proving intent). Bouck is a motion-to-dismiss ruling that accepted allegations as true and made no merits findings, so it is not binding and could be reversed or limited on appeal, but it may lower the pleading threshold for plaintiffs to obtain discovery against platforms that offer GenAI advertising tools.