Businessman Yusaku Maezawa had sued Meta in the US, seeking an injunction to stop fake investment ads on social media that used his photo and name without permission. On November 10, the Tokyo District Court ruled against Maezawa, stating that “Meta was not directly involved in the placement of the ads.” It has also come to light that the lawsuit sought an injunction rather than damages, with the claimed damages set at a symbolic 1 yen. On 5ch, opinions were split — some questioned the court’s logic by comparing it to the liability newspapers and train-car ads bear, while others argued platforms should be held responsible for screening ads.
[Breaking] Businessman Yusaku Maezawa loses lawsuit seeking injunction against “Meta” over fake impersonation ads on social media; Tokyo District Court rejects claim, rules “Meta not directly involved in ad placement” | TBS NEWS DIG
November 10, 2026 (Tue) 13:37, TBS Television
Businessman Yusaku Maezawa had sued Meta’s US operations and others, claiming he was the victim of impersonation through fake ads that used his photo and name without permission, and sought to have the ads taken down. The Tokyo District Court has just handed down a ruling rejecting Maezawa’s claim.
So if a newspaper ran the exact same ad, the newspaper wouldn't be at fault either…? Is that seriously what they're saying?
17AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:38
Re: #11
Newspapers choose what to print themselves before sending it to press, but ads placed on the internet are more like stickers slapped on a utility pole.
41AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:44
Re: #11
More like a flyer than an ad, I'd say.
13AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:37
With this many fake ads flooding in, even instant takedowns would just be a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
15AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:38
It's about time they changed the law so companies that run scam ads also become liable for damages. I've reported phishing scam ads on YouTube over and over, and they just keep sitting there ignored.
16AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:38
Look, I'm no fan of Maezawa, but even so, this is just not right. Is the Tokyo District Court seriously willing to lend a hand to crime here?
18AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:39
So the court is saying that even though they handed over a platform to advertisers who pull this kind of stunt, they bear zero responsibility?
19AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:39
This is exactly why this country is finished.
20AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:39
It's because judges need cushy jobs lined up at big law firms representing American companies once they retire.
22AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:40
Even so, this logic is just bizarre. I'd buy it if Hiroyuki (the 2channel/5ch founder, famous for dodging liability over user posts) had also walked free on the same logic.
23AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:40
This is also a country where soaplands (a euphemism for brothels) get off scot-free on the same logic — "we just rented out the room."
24AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:40
So Meta didn't care that an impostor was impersonating Maezawa — they just picked whichever option made them more ad revenue.
27AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:41
By the way, Maezawa's actual goal here was an immediate injunction, so the damages he claimed in this suit were just 1 yen.
31AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:42
Well, it's basically the same as how ZOZO (Maezawa's own e-commerce platform) doesn't pay damages just because a partner shop on it commits fraud — they're ultimately just renting out the space.
37AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:43
Re: #31
It's less about damages and more about whether they could just ban the seller from the platform outright. As things stand, with this flood of scam ads, there's not much more you can do technically besides automated removal.
78AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:51
Re: #31
Though I'd also raise an eyebrow at the brands on ZOZO selling blatant, zero-originality knockoffs — and they've been profiting off that for years now too.
32AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:43
"Not directly involved"? Yeah, I don't really follow that logic.
35AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:43
Publicity rights cases are a tough road — courts rarely rule in your favor on those.
36AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:43
I'm not a Maezawa fan, but platform companies seriously need to get knocked down a peg already. They're way too out of control.
38AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:43
It's basically like asking whether a railway company would be liable if a hanging ad inside a train car caused some kind of problem.
47AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:45
Re: #38
Don't railway companies actually screen those first, though? Like telling weekly magazines to tone it down when it's too vulgar.
43AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:44
LOL, the courts are straight-up enabling fraud at this point.
44AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:44
Couldn't he just sue the advertiser directly and seek an injunction against them?
45AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:45
Re: #42
The defendants in this suit were Meta's headquarters and its Japanese subsidiary, though.
46AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:45
Yeah, Japan really needs to introduce punitive damages already.
48AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:45
Re: #37
They could just screen the ads in advance, that's literally all it'd take.
56AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:46
Re: #48
If it were only something like 100 ads a day, sure, that might work.
61AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:47
Re: #48
Realistically impossible. How exactly are they supposed to check whether some celebrity shown in an ad actually gave permission to use their image?
51AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:45
There are also ads out there with videos of Horiemon (entrepreneur Takafumi Horie) or Shinjiro Koizumi (lol) pitching investments. You'd think they could at least auto-remove stuff that obvious lmao.
53AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:46
I wonder if they'd reach the same ruling if the ad used a Supreme Court justice's real face and real name.
54AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:46
If their automated screening isn't actually working, that's on the company. If you're renting out the space and pocketing the money, you take on the responsibility too.
55AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:46
By that logic, couldn't you just run literally any ad you want?
68AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:48
Wait, so the one being sued is Meta, the one who ran the ad, not the advertiser itself?
73AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:50
Re: #68
Because the advertiser can just hit and run.
85AnonymousNov 10, 2026 14:54
Re: #68
Meta has a Japanese subsidiary, but the advertiser's probably based in China or somewhere like that, so suing them would mean filing suit in China.
Background and Key Points of the Debate
Impersonation ads on social media — using celebrities’ likenesses without permission to push investment scams — have long been a recognized problem, with similar ads using the names of figures like Horiemon or sitting Diet members reported again and again. What’s easy to miss is that this case wasn’t actually about damages at all, but about getting an injunction to stop the ads running, with the damages claim itself set at a token 1 yen. Where the thread split was over how far a platform operator’s responsibility can be held to the same standard as media that pre-screens content, like newspapers or train-car ads, versus online advertising, which largely runs on automated, programmatic delivery. It’s also worth noting, as context for the ruling, that lawsuits over violations of publicity rights face a notoriously high bar of proof in Japan.
Leave a Reply