In a win for transparency, the Washington Court of Appeals rejected Facebook parent company Meta’s challenge to a campaign finance law in Washington state that requires digital platforms to keep records of political advertising that takes place on their sites.
As a result of this decision, these disclosure requirements — which provide Washington voters with critical information about who is paying to target specific audiences with political messaging to influence their vote — will remain in place.
This is a key step toward protecting transparency in the new era of digital advertising.
Under Washington state law, media entities that run election ads must maintain and, upon request, disclose records about who purchases political ads and how much they paid, as well as copies of the ads.
In terms of online social media platforms like Meta, the law also requires them to disclose the demographics of the audiences targeted and reached by political ads.
After Meta failed to comply with this disclosure law for years between 2018 and 2021, Meta was sued by Washington’s attorney general, and the lawsuit resulted in a record $25 million fine for Meta’s repeat violations.
In response, Meta challenged the constitutionality of the law, claiming that its disclosure provisions violated the company’s First Amendment rights.
Campaign Legal Center (CLC), joined by the League of Women Voters of Washington, Fix Democracy First and the Brennan Center for Justice, filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining the importance of laws that provide voters with information about who is financing ads that attempt to influence their election choices.
The brief further details how rising online political spending has contributed to an increase in misinformation and political polarization and how comprehensive disclosure laws, by shining a light on this new spending, can combat the negative effects of this trend.
The Court of Appeals rejected Meta’s argument and cited CLC’s brief in their opinion, explaining how the “unique features of digital advertising pose new threats to democracy,” and noting that the “practice of micro-targeting means that online audiences have little understanding of the full range of advertising run by a candidate or advocacy group, including the different messages other voters are being shown.”
The Court concluded that Washington’s disclosure law properly protects voters in the modern age of social media political advertising.
By rejecting Meta’s attempt to dismantle this key transparency measure, the Court reaffirms long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that campaign finance disclosure advances First Amendment principles by contributing to a more informed voting public.
As political advertising moves increasingly online and federal laws have failed to keep up — and tech platforms have failed to self-regulate — disclosure laws like Washington’s will become even more crucial for the protection for voters.