State Of Washington, V. Meta Platforms, Inc., 560 P.3d 217

Background

Meta Platforms (Facebook) runs targeted political advertising and maintains an Ad Library that captures much but not all targeting/payment data; Ad Library was created in 2018 and retains ads for years.
Washington law (RCW 42.17A.345 and PDC rule WAC 390-18-050) requires commercial advertisers/digital platforms to maintain books of account for political ads (including sponsor identity, copy, cost, dates, demographic targeting, and impressions), make them available for inspection, and produce them on request within short timeframes.
The State sued Meta for failing to preserve/provide required ad records for Washington political ads; earlier 2018 stipulated judgment with Meta occurred, Meta later banned WA political ads but still hosted many targeted ads.
King County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the State, found 822 violations, imposed $10,000 per-violation civil penalty (trebled to $24.66M for intentional violations), awarded ~$10.52M in attorney fees and costs, and entered injunctive relief; Meta appealed.
On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the disclosure law survives exacting First Amendment scrutiny; (2) Section 230 does not preempt the recordkeeping/disclosure requirements; and (3) the court’s penalty calculation, trebling for intent, and fee award were proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. First Amendment: Does the disclosure law violate Meta’s free-speech rights?	State: Disclosure is viewpoint-neutral, advances the important interest of informing the electorate about who funds and targets political ads, and is subject to exacting scrutiny but is substantially related and narrowly tailored.	Meta: Strict/exacting scrutiny should invalidate the rule as content-based and unduly burdensome for platforms; burdens (monitoring, costs, timeliness, breadth, retention, penalties) chill speech.	The court applied exacting scrutiny, found an important government interest (informed electorate) and that the law is substantially related and reasonably narrowly tailored; First Amendment challenge rejected.
2. Federal preemption (Section 230): Does §230 bar enforcement of the disclosure/recordkeeping scheme?	State: The law regulates Meta’s recordkeeping and disclosure obligations (its own conduct), not publisher liability for third-party content; thus §230 does not preempt.	Meta: The law treats platforms as publishers/forces monitoring and therefore is preempted by §230.	Court held §230 does not preempt because the law targets Meta’s own recordkeeping/disclosure conduct (not punishment for content), and does not require editorial decisions or content-based liability.
3. Civil penalties and trebling: Should violations be counted per-request or per-ad; was $10,000 per violation and trebling for intent appropriate?	State: Violations are per-ad (statutory scheme and regulatory text require maintaining records per advertisement), statutory maximum may be applied, and trebling is permitted for intentional violations.	Meta: Violations should be measured per-request (Bittner analogy), statutory maximum per-ad and trebling are excessive and unfair given mitigating facts and compliance efforts.	Court applied Bittner framework and concluded per-ad measurement is proper, did not abuse discretion in imposing $10,000 per violation, and trebling was justified given record evidence of intentional conduct (redactions, self‑imposed limits).
4. Attorney fees and appellate relief: Are fees and costs recoverable and was the injunction/relief proper?	State: RCW 42.17A.780 authorizes costs and reasonable attorney fees; enforcement and injunctive relief appropriate.	Meta: Challenges not pressed on appeal; did not meaningfully contest fee award.	Court awarded appellate fees to the State under the statute and affirmed the injunctive/monetary relief.

Key Cases Cited

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (compelled-disclosure precedent recognizing disclosure’s role in informing electorate)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (upholding timely disclosure obligations to inform voters)
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (compelled disclosure reviewed under exacting scrutiny)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (disclosure and campaign finance principles)
John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (disclosure of referendum-related information and exacting scrutiny context)
Washington Post v. McManus, 944 F.3d 506 (4th Cir.) (distinguishable decision striking Maryland statute imposing publication/inspection duties on news outlets)
HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (Section 230 does not preempt laws that regulate internal, non-publishing recordkeeping/monitoring)
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (three-part §230 preemption test)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (publisher-liability framing underlying §230 jurisprudence)
Bittner v. United States, 598 U.S. 85 (statutory-penalty counting framework and interpretive approach)
Evergreen Freedom Found. v. State, 192 Wn.2d 782 (Wash.) (state precedent applying exacting scrutiny to disclosure requirements)