Publisher with 25m Facebook followers loses key claim over Meta's 2020 shutdown

Losing access to a social media account can mean losing years of work, an established audience and an important source of business. That was the situation faced by a Canadian online publisher whose Facebook pages once attracted around 25 million followers. The company had submitted more than 500,000 advertisements to Meta over the years, but thousands were rejected for violating advertising policies. In October 2020, Meta permanently shut down its Facebook pages, ending a relationship that had lasted more than a decade. The publisher took the company to court, arguing that the closure had interfered with its business and property rights. In a ruling dated October 30, 2026, in Shared Partnership v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (No. 25-2612), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the publisher's conversion claim. According to the judgment available on the Ninth Circuit's website, the three-judge panel found that Meta was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because removing the company's Facebook pages was part of its role as a publisher. The court also rejected the argument that presenting the dispute as a contractual violation could take it outside that legal protection. How the publisher built its Facebook audience Shared Partnership is a Canadian company that creates and publishes online content. For more than ten years, it operated several Facebook pages and used Meta's self-service advertising platform to attract visitors to its website and social media accounts. Its business model relied on eye-catching and provocative advertisements designed to generate clicks. The company's employees acknowledged that some of its advertising methods involved what they described as misleading clickbait and questionable promotional material. At its peak, Shared had approximately 25 million Facebook followers. Over the years, it submitted more than 500,000 advertisements to Meta for review. Although most were accepted, the platform rejected more than 18,000 advertisements for various policy violations. These included advertisements containing sensational or adult material, images focusing excessively on particular body parts, and promotions involving products or services considered deceptive or misleading. One rejected advertisement featured images of damaged cars and actor Luke Wilson alongside claims about a horrific fatal car crash. Facebook rejected it because its policies did not allow shocking or sensational content, including images depicting violence. The company was unhappy with the explanations provided for rejected advertisements. Its chief executive, Jordan Nabigon, believed Meta should provide customised feedback that would help the publisher edit advertisements and bring them into compliance. Despite the repeated rejections, Shared continued advertising on Facebook until the relationship ended. Meta shuts down the pages in 2020 In October 2020, Meta cancelled Shared's Facebook pages, citing repeated violations of its terms and policies. The publisher considered the decision devastating for its business. It argued that losing its Facebook presence meant losing access to an audience it had spent years building. Shared subsequently sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Among its claims was conversion, a legal claim generally involving the wrongful interference with another party's personal property. The company argued that it had an exclusive property interest in its Facebook pages and that Meta had unlawfully interfered with those rights by removing them. However, the district court dismissed the conversion claim, finding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected Meta from liability for decisions involving the publication or removal of third-party content. Shared appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. Why the publisher argued Meta breached its agreement Before the appeals court, Shared argued that its case was not simply about Meta's decision to remove content. It recast its conversion theory as a breach-of-contract argument, relying on Facebook's Terms of Service. The company maintained that Meta could suspend or permanently disable an account only when a user had clearly, seriously or repeatedly violated its terms or policies. Shared argued that it had not committed the violations necessary to justify the closure. It also referred to an earlier Ninth Circuit decision, Calise v. Meta Platforms, which recognised that certain contractual claims could fall outside Section 230 protection when they involved obligations separate from a platform's publishing activities. The appeals court rejected this argument, finding that the relevant terms did not establish the separate contractual promise Shared was asserting. Court explains why Section 230 protects Meta The appeals court rejected Shared's arguments on the conversion claim. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee explained that Section 230 protects online platforms when they act as publishers or speakers of content supplied by others. The judges noted that publishing also includes deciding whether to remove content or prevent it from appearing on a platform. Therefore, Meta's decision to unpublish Shared's Facebook pages fell within its editorial responsibilities. The judges distinguished the case from Calise, where the contractual promise involved Meta's commitment to combat deceptive advertising, rather than its general editorial authority over content. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the dismissal of Shared's conversion claim, leaving the lower court's decision intact. The October 30 ruling reinforces that online platforms can rely on Section 230 protection when deciding whether to remove users and their content, even when those decisions have significant consequences for a publisher's business.