Denis O’Brien was granted permission by the High Court to add over 370 individuals to his defamation lawsuit, which was instigated against a series of offensive and alleged counterfeit ads featuring his image. These ads were displayed on platforms run by Meta. Alongside Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, the Dublin-based European headquarters of the social media behemoth, Mr. O’Brien is also charging the suspected producers of these adverts.
However, due to the team of lawyers representing Mr. O’Brien struggling to pinpoint the exact people behind these adverts, all additional defendants have been anonymised as “John and Jane Doe” in the case documentation. These unnamed individuals are linked to IP addresses and phone numbers tied to more than 40 ad accounts. These accounts supposedly facilitated and financed the accused ads on Meta’s platforms.
During the court session, it was stated that these contentious ads were seen by thousands of users in Ireland and other European countries. Recently, Mr. O’Brien managed to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order, requiring Meta to disclose details that could help him in identifying those who have planted and paid for these ads. This order, which Meta didn’t counter, necessitates the revelation of names, contact information, physical addresses, instances of account access, and payment methods of the implicated parties.
Mr. O’Brien’s legal counsel announced that they have received a hefty number of documents totalling 12,000 pages from Meta. This paperwork is to be analysed to extract necessary data for adding more parties to the lawsuit. The ones filing for defamation have a year from the day they find out about the incriminating material, according to the counsel. Given that Mr. O’Brien first became aware of these ads last August, the deadline is looming. Already, the supplied information has uncovered a host of IP addresses and phone numbers associated with the offending Meta accounts.
The counsel disclosed that certain details are associated with a variety of nations such as Japan, Myanmar, the Philippines, Brazil, New Zealand, Columbia, the U.S., Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Canada. The counsel voiced doubts about the ability to mask phone numbers and IP addresses, thus hiding their true geographical locations.
Additional concerns were raised regarding information from Meta that certain advertising accounts may have been tampered with by unknown entities, and that this could lead to potential litigation against innocent parties. While this issue was brought to light by Meta, no clarity was provided to the counsel’s client about which specific accounts were compromised, or the timing of such breaches.
Counter responding, Ms Hogan confirmed that her client had fully met the obligations under the Norwich Pharmacal order and dismissed any allegations that Meta had delayed or submitted incorrect data. She indicated her client’s willingness to share with Mr O’Brien specifics about the accounts that have been compromised and when the unauthorized access occurred. She emphasised that sharing such data is not covered by a Norwich Pharmacal order. Ms Justice Carmel Stewart approved these provisions during a vacation court sitting on Wednesday.
Based on the evidence available, the judge added the names of the organizations identified by the plaintiff’s lawyers to the case. Further orders were passed allowing the plaintiff to share details of the proceedings with the newly implicated defendants, suspected to be based outside of the EU.
According to Mr O’Brien, since August 2023, his image and identity have been exploited in a series of counterfeit ads aimed at promoting suspicious financial ventures, including cryptocurrency investments, through the Meta Ads platform. The businessman distanced himself from the promoted schemes displayed on Facebook and Instagram.
Certain ads include manipulated interviews of Mr O’Brien, creating fraudulent claims about various services and products he is not involved in. He argues these ads violate his privacy rights, damage his reputation, infringe GDPR, and violate his possession rights. Consequently, he is seeking damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, illegal possession of his property, passing off, as well as violations of his data protection laws and constitutional rights.
He asserts that the counterfeit advertisements violate European Union legislation dealing with fraud and misrepresentation, unsolicited communication and the veracity and sincerity of account ownership. Alongside claims for compensation, he’s also pursuing legal orders to stop the continued dissemination of comments pertaining to him via the Meta Ad application, and mandates prohibiting the association of his name and photograph with the endorsement of any financial or cryptocurrency trading service without prior information given to the entrepreneur. The case is set to come back before the judiciary in the later part of this year.