Jurisdiction queried as Metta shows face in court to face Forrest
Social media giant Facebook is disputing whether Australia and iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest have the jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against the group.
Social media giant Facebook is disputing whether Australia and iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest have the jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against the group, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle.
Dr Forrest earlier this year took the unusual decision to launch criminal proceedings against Facebook’s parent company Meta Platforms, alleging the company breached money-laundering laws when it featured fraudulent advertising on its platforms. The mining magnate and philanthropist is one of a host of prominent Australians whose image has been used by scammers targeting people through Facebook advertising.
After opting not to send any legal representation to the first hearing earlier this year, Meta was represented on Friday by Paul Yovich SC, the same barrister who acted for Claremont serial killer Bradley Edwards, when the matter went back before the Perth Magistrates Court.
During a brief hearing, Mr Yovich told the court that his appearance on behalf of Meta should not be seen as a concession on the question of jurisdiction. That issue is now set to be thrashed out at another hearing in 10 weeks’ time after the court agreed to an adjournment.
Facebook, through its lawyers at Californian law firm White & Case, had earlier this year sent an email to the court raising jurisdictional issues with the case and questioning whether it had been validly served.
Speaking outside the court, Dr Forrest’s lawyer Simon Clarke said Facebook’s decision to have legal representation in the court represented a step forward with the case.
“Dr Forrest’s prosecution of Facebook moved to the next stage. We are further in the process of pursuing the committal of Facebook on the charges Dr Forrest has brought,” Mr Clarke said.
“Certainly it’s an advance in putting it on Facebook’s radar screen. They’ve turned up, great, they’re going to respond to the process in Western Australia and I think that’s a progression.”
He said he expected Facebook to ultimately make a challenge around the question of jurisdiction.
“They didn’t commit to making an application to contest jurisdiction but presumably that’s what the basis of their request for an adjournment was,” he said.
“There’s a battle ahead, that’s for sure. How long that is, is yet to be seen but if jurisdiction is challenged, then it will take some time.”
While Facebook faces fines if it is ultimately found guilty, the more significant damage could be that to its corporate reputation and its position in other civil law suits against it over the scam advertisements.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has separately launched its own Federal Court action alleging Facebook engaged in misleading conduct by publishing the advertisements.
Among the victims of the scam advertisements is one Australian who lost $US670,000 ($953,000) after falling for a fake endorsement bearing Dr Forrest’s name and image.
More Coverage
Smartphone ban brings calm to classrooms
Smartphone and vaping bans in schools have been hailed for making students ‘better behaved’ and classrooms calmer.
NDIS to notch up $600m in savings
More than $600m has been shaved off the projected budget forecast for NDIS in the first seven months of the financial year despite almost 20,000 new participants joining the scheme in the past quarter alone.