Key Points
ใปOn November 10, 2026, the Tokyo District Court found that fake investment ads on Facebook and Instagram impersonating businessman Yusaku Maezawa infringed his publicity rights, but rejected his claims for 1 yen in damages and an injunction against Meta.
ใปScam ads impersonating celebrities and investment influencers have spread on social media in Japan and serve as an entry point to investment fraud.
ใปThe case raises a question that the ruling did not settle: how much responsibility a company that sells and targets ads should bear, and where governments, banks and users can step in.
Tokyo Court Rejects Yusaku Maezawa’s Claims Against Meta Over Fake Investment Ads
The Tokyo District Court on November 10, 2026 dismissed a lawsuit by Japanese businessman Yusaku Maezawa against US-based Meta and its Japanese subsidiary over fake ads on Facebook and Instagram that used his name and photo without permission to lure people into bogus investments. According to Jiji Press, Maezawa had sought 1 yen in damages and an injunction against the ads.
The court found that the ads impersonated Maezawa to solicit investments and infringed his publicity rights and other rights. It nonetheless rejected Meta’s liability for damages, saying Meta had merely provided the place where the ads appeared and was not directly involved in posting them, and that it could not be found that Meta was able to recognize the infringement immediately. It also found no need for an injunction, noting that at the time Meta had stopped most of the ads within two days of their posting.
Maezawa’s lawyer called the ruling “very disappointing” and said an appeal was under consideration. Meta said it would “continue working to protect people who use our services.” The ruling appears to be the first time a Japanese court has ruled on whether fake celebrity ads infringe the rights of the person impersonated.
Related Articles
Why Maezawa Sued Meta
Fake ads built on a famous name
Publicity rights refer to a person’s right to stop others from using their name or likeness for business without permission, because a famous name or face has the power to attract customers. Maezawa argued that the use of his name and face to solicit investments without his permission infringed these and other rights, and that Meta, which ran the ads, was also responsible.
According to Japanese media reports, ads using Maezawa’s name and photo began appearing on Facebook and Instagram by around June 2023 at the latest. They made it look as though Maezawa was recommending an investment and led readers to schemes that did not exist. Maezawa himself had nothing to do with them.
Maezawa’s side asked Meta to remove the ads in August 2023. Meta replied that it would work to resolve the problem, but the ads kept appearing.
He was not the only target. In spring 2024, ads impersonating entrepreneur Takafumi Horie and economic analyst Takuro Morinaga also drew attention, and journalist Akira Ikegami wrote in his own column that impersonations of him had appeared in many places. Ads using the names and photos of influencers known for investment and economic commentary have also appeared.
The scale of the fraud these ads feed into is large. According to Japan’s National Police Agency, losses from social media investment fraud in 2025 reached about 128.8 billion yen, and in about 40 percent of cases the victim’s first contact came through an ad. The agency says it has confirmed that such ads used images and videos of celebrities without permission. The figure covers all social media investment fraud, not only fraud that began with impersonation ads.
| Item | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Losses from social media investment fraud in Japan, 2025 | About 128.8 billion yen | National Police Agency (2026) |
| Share of cases where first contact came through an ad | About 40 percent | National Police Agency (2026) |
| Share of 2024 Meta revenue estimated to come from scam or banned-goods ads | About 10 percent (Meta disputes the estimate) | Reuters, November 2025 |
| Fake ads Meta says it removed in 2025 | More than 159 million, 92 percent before user reports | Meta (2026) |
Why he went after the platform, and what he asked for
The people who place these ads often cannot be identified or located. After his removal requests failed to stop the ads, Maezawa filed suit in May 2024 against Meta’s US parent and its Japanese unit, the companies that publish the ads and earn money from them.
He asked for 1 yen in damages and an injunction against the ads. According to Japanese media reports, he also asked for stricter ad screening and for prompt removal after ads appear.
On the day he filed, Maezawa wrote on X: “I deliberately set the damages claim at 1 yen. First, I want to make clear whether what they are doing is illegal or legal.” The lawsuit was not about the amount of money. It asked a court to decide whether Meta’s conduct in continuing to run the fake ads was unlawful.
What the court accepted and what it rejected
The two sides split not over the fake ads themselves but over Meta’s responsibility for running them.
The court first found that the fake ads impersonated Maezawa to draw people into bogus investments and relied entirely on the drawing power of his name and face, and that they therefore infringed his publicity rights and other rights. On whether the ads themselves were unlawful, Maezawa won.
The court did not find Meta liable. According to the legal news site Bengo4.com and other reports, the court gave several reasons for rejecting damages. A third party posted the ads, and Meta merely provided the place and was not directly involved. It was unclear how the Japanese unit was specifically involved. A notice that Maezawa’s side sent before the ads were posted did not identify their content or where they appeared. And there was no evidence that Meta could have noticed the infringement right away.
The court also said that, depending on the nature of the infringement and how a request is made, leaving ads in place could itself amount to infringement.
On the injunction, according to Bengo4.com’s report, the court acknowledged a strong need to prevent scam ads, but noted that at the time Meta had stopped about 10 percent of the ads in question by the day after they were posted and most of them within two days. It concluded there was no risk that the ads would be left up.
After the ruling, Maezawa posted on X that “saying it’s fine as long as you delete them within two days is really a stretch,” arguing that most timeline content is read within two days and that a large number of views, and losses, must occur in that window.
A lawsuit brought by people who were actually defrauded reached a similar outcome. Six individuals and one company who had sent money after believing ads impersonating Rakuten Group chairman Hiroshi Mikitani, Horie and Maezawa sued Meta. In October 2026, the Yokohama District Court dismissed their claims, saying it was hard to say the ads were easily recognizable as fraud and that Meta had no duty to investigate whether ads were true. Similar cases are pending in five other district courts in Japan.
A German court ruled the other way
In September 2026, the Frankfurt Regional Court in Germany sided with a company that runs a financial comparison website, and with its chief executive, whose names had been used in fake investment ads. The court ordered Meta to stop the ads and found that Meta was obliged to pay damages.
The court put weight on the fact that Meta decides which ads are shown to whom through its ad auctions and its own systems. On that basis it held that Meta was not merely a company renting out space for users’ posts, and declined to apply the liability exemption that the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) grants to intermediary services. It also noted that some ads took more than two weeks to remove even after specific notices identifying them.
The German ruling did not order refunds to people who were defrauded. The plaintiffs included a company, not only an individual, and the law applied was different. When the court announced the ruling in September, it was not yet final, and we have not been able to confirm whether it has since become final.
Why Fake Ads Keep Coming Back, and Who Can Stop Them
Why are celebrity scam ads so hard to get rid of?
The people behind the ads are often overseas, and when an ad or account is shut down, they can quickly put up a new one with a different photo or a different celebrity.
The platforms also have their own incentives. According to Meta internal documents reported by Reuters in November 2025, Meta banned suspected scam advertisers only when its automated systems were at least 95 percent certain of fraud. Below that threshold, it kept running their ads while charging them higher rates.
The same documents estimated that about 10 percent of Meta’s 2024 revenue came from ads for scams and banned goods. Meta rejected that estimate as rough and overly inclusive.
A December 2025 Reuters follow-up reported that Meta had estimated that verifying the identity of all advertisers would cost about $2 billion and could cut revenue by up to 4.8 percent, and that it intended to do so fully only where the law required it.
That report also said that in Japan, Meta, wary of mandatory verification, repeatedly searched its public ad library using the search terms and celebrity names that regulators used, and removed the apparent scam ads that came up.
Meta, for its part, says reports of scam ads fell 58 percent over 18 months, and that of more than 159 million scam ads it removed in 2025, 92 percent were found before any user reported them. Companies measure these figures in different ways, so they cannot be used to rank one platform against another.
Part of the reason the ads persist is the ingenuity of the people who make them. Another part is a business decision: how to balance an ad system built to sell large volumes of ads easily against the cost of screening them.
How far should a platform’s responsibility go?
The Tokyo court left open the possibility that, depending on how a request is made, leaving ads up could be unlawful. But because Maezawa’s notice was sent before the ads were posted and did not identify them, it rejected damages, and because Meta took down most ads within two days, it saw no need for an injunction.
The more celebrities are impersonated, the heavier the burden of finding each ad, identifying it and asking for its removal. As Maezawa argued, even two days is enough for an ad to reach many people, and the Yokohama ruling has not yet opened a path to compensation for those who were defrauded.
The German case differed from the Japanese one in its facts, including how specific the notices were and how long removal took. Beyond that, the Frankfurt court treated the fact that Meta selects ads and decides where to show them as a reason in itself for Meta to bear responsibility.
What the Winny case can and cannot tell us
Japan has a well-known reference point for the responsibility of those who provide a platform: the case of Winny, a file-sharing program.
The developer of Winny was prosecuted for aiding copyright infringement. In 2011, Japan’s Supreme Court finalized his acquittal, finding that he could not be shown to have had the awareness required for the crime. The decision also reflected concern that broadly punishing the provision of technology could chill software development.
That case, however, concerned the criminal liability of a person who wrote and released software. Meta sells ad space, earns money from it, and controls the screening, delivery and removal of ads itself, and Maezawa’s case was about civil liability. Their positions are different, and there is no indication that the Tokyo court had the Winny case in mind.
The cautious view has its reasons too. Requiring every ad to be screened in advance could block legitimate ads by mistake, or leave only large companies that can afford huge screening costs able to run ad businesses. How much responsibility to ask of a company that controls ad delivery and profits from it, in proportion to that power, is a question that an appeal court will face if Maezawa appeals, and that the five other pending district court cases will face as well.
What governments, banks and users can do
Wiping out fake ads entirely is unrealistic. The practical goal is to add friction at each stage, from the ad, to the lure, to the transfer of money, to the movement of the stolen funds, and so reduce the damage.
In June 2024, Japan’s government adopted a package of measures that asked social media companies to strengthen ad screening. In August 2026, it asked five companies, including Meta, Google and LY Corporation, to verify advertisers’ identities, respond quickly to removal requests, and report figures such as their removal rates and average response times. Neither request is legally binding.
In March 2026, Japan’s digital minister said the government would consider requiring platforms to verify advertisers’ identities, and in May a working team of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party drew up a draft proposal calling for legislation to require identity checks and the removal of problem ads. No such law has been passed yet. Another open issue is whether the companies’ reports will be published so that outsiders can check how often fake ads are shown and how often they reappear. Stricter identity checks also have a side effect: the more personal data is collected in one place, the greater the risk if it leaks.
At the point where money leaves victims’ hands, Japan’s police and banks launched a system in June 2026 to freeze, more quickly, the accounts to which defrauded money is transferred. In the United Kingdom, banks and other payment firms must reimburse certain fraud victims, and about 90 percent of the losses covered by the scheme have been returned, according to the Payment Systems Regulator’s reimbursement data.
For users, the safest rule is not to decide anything inside the ad. If a celebrity appears to recommend an investment, open that person’s official website or account yourself rather than following the ad’s link. Registration with Japan’s Financial Services Agency can also be checked, but because fraudsters sometimes borrow the names of real registered firms, the contact details should be compared with those in the official register. Promises of guaranteed profits, or demands for a fee before you can withdraw money, are a signal to stop. In Japan, anyone who has already sent money should stop further transfers and contact the police consultation line (#9110) and the receiving bank right away; the consumer hotline (188) is also available.
How AI is changing fake ads
Generative AI makes it possible to mass-produce videos and voices that look and sound like a celebrity speaking, along with natural text tailored to each target. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned that fake investment videos and cloned voices are being used in fraud. Separately from whether AI is behind the data breaches reported recently, there is also the problem that leaked personal data becomes easier to exploit with AI.
Defenders are also using AI to detect fake ads and check suspicious transfers. But tighter controls also stop legitimate ads and payments, so the contest continues.
The more fake ads are mass-produced and swapped out quickly, the harder it becomes for a system that removes ads one by one after they are identified and reported to keep up. For users, too, checking through a separate channel before sending money is more reliable than trying to judge a face or a voice.
Japanese Reactions on X to the Maezawa Ruling
On the evening of November 10, Maezawa himself posted on X asking whether the ruling meant fake ads could be left unchecked, and the ruling was widely discussed there. The posts below are Japanese-language posts on X from November 10 to 11, Japan time, that we checked through public search. In the posts we found, criticism of the ruling far outnumbered posts accepting its legal reasoning. They are a small set, not a random sample, and not a measure of opinion in Japan. The translations are ours.
A user named ็จฒๅฆปใฎใบใบ, quoting Maezawa’s post about the ruling, wrote:
ใใใใๅๅใๅๆใซ็ฏ็ฝชใซไฝฟใใใๅๆพคใใใๅฟ ๆญปใซๅๅใจใใฆ่ฃๅคใใชใใใใใชใใฎใ็ไธๅฐฝใช่จณใ ใใๆๅฅใซใใฎๅคๆฑบใฏไธๅฝ้ใใใ
— ็จฒๅฆปใฎใบใบ(่ชใ็ถใใใๆดๆฅฝๅข) (@sukepon2021) November 10, 2026
ใกใฟๅดใๅฟ ๆญปใซๅ้คๅชๅใใฆใใใชใใจใใใใไปใพใงใใใ ใ้ๆพใใซใใฆใใใฆ…ใโฆ https://t.co/8su6yk01od
It’s unreasonable enough that Maezawa, whose name was used for crimes without his permission, has to fight so hard in court as the plaintiff, and on top of that, this ruling is far too unfair.
If Meta had been working hard to remove them, that would be one thing, but after leaving them unchecked for so long…
If a certain number of people with low information literacy are going to keep existing, then I think the side that runs the ads has to be given a duty to find and remove them. (translated)
The operator of the YouTube channel ่ฑใป็จ็ๅฃซในใฌใฏใฉใใ, whose display name cites 1.8 million subscribers, wrote:
้ๅธธใซๆฎๅฟตใชๅคๆฑบ๏ผ
— ่ฑ.็จ็ๅฃซในใฌใฏใฉใใYouTube180ไธไบบ็ช็ ด/็จ็ๅฃซไบบๆฐใใญใฐ1ไฝ/ๆธ็ฑใในใใปใฉใผ16ไธ้จ (@sugawara11) November 11, 2026
ๅใ่ฉๆฌบๅบๅใ ใใงใชใใใชใใใพใๅฝใขใซใฆใณใใง้ๅธธใซๅฐใฃใฆใใพใใ
ใใใๅ ฑๅใใฆใๆถใใฆใใใใชใใใๅฝใขใซใฆใณใใฏๅขใใไธๆนใ
ๅๆพคใใใฏๅใจใฏๆฏใน็ฉใซใชใใชใใใใใฎ้ใ ใจๆใใพใใ
ๅฝใขใซใฆใณใใฏๆ่ณ่ฉฑใงLINEใซ่ชๅฐใใฆใใ้ใๆฏใ่พผใพใใๆๆณใงใใโฆ https://t.co/hIm8BiMnDt
A very disappointing ruling!
I’m also having serious trouble, not only with scam ads but with fake accounts impersonating me.
No matter how many times I report them, they don’t get removed, and the fake accounts just keep increasing.
I think Maezawa is dealing with far more than I am.
The fake accounts lure people to LINE [a messaging app] with investment pitches and get them to transfer money.
Every day many people message me asking, “Is this really you?” To keep people from becoming victims, I reply, “That’s a fake, so please be careful,” but handling that alone takes a lot of effort.
Some fake accounts are also trying to make money, and some of them have thousands of followers.
To keep people from becoming victims, I want a system where scam ads and fake accounts can’t appear. (translated)
A user named ็พ้ๆบๆบ็ใซใใกใใ, replying to Maezawa’s post, wrote:
ใใใงใใใชใใฃใใGoogleๆค็ดขใชใใฆ้ ใ ใพใง็ๅฝ็ขบใใใฆใใใใใชใใ่กจ็คบใใใใใชใใฎใใฃใฆใชใใใใใ
— ็พ้ๆบๆบ็ใซใใกใใ (@JACKOWLLA) November 10, 2026
ใกใฟๅดใซๅ้คไพ้ ผใ่ฉๆฌบๅบๅไธป๏ผๅบๅไผ็คพ๏ผใ็ธๆใซ่ซๆฑใใใฎใๆญฃๆปๆณใชใฎใงใฏใชใใใจใ
ใใ ็พๅฎ็ใซใฏ็ฉ่ถณใใชใใฎใใธใฌใณใใงใใใจใใใๆๆฌ็ใชๅฏพ็ญใใใใจใใใฎใงใใโฆใ
If that weren’t OK, then you’d have to say Google Search can’t show anything until it has checked every last result for truth.
I think the proper route is to ask Meta to remove the ads and to bring claims against the scam advertisers (the ad companies).
Still, the dilemma is that in practice that falls short. I hope there’s some fundamental solution… (translated)
A user named ๆฅๆฅๆฏๅฅฝๆฅ wrote:
ๅๆพคใใใฎใชใใใพใๅบๅ่จด่จใฎๆ่จดใซใฏ้ฉใใใใใฉใใใใฉใผใใผใใฉใใพใงใงใใใฎใใฎๅคๆญใฏ้ฃใใใใฉใๆฌๅคๆฑบใฏใใงใใฏใใชใใฆใใใจใๅขจไปใใไธใใใจใๅใใใ
— ๆฅๆฅๆฏๅฅฝๆฅ (@abucchipage) November 11, 2026
ไปๅใฎไปถใใไธ่ฌใฎๆ็จฟใชใฎใๅบๅใชใฎใใจใ็ดฐ้จใฏ็ฅใใชใใใฉใๅฐใชใใจใๅบๅใซ้ขใใฆใฏใใงใใฏใใฆๆฌฒใใใ
I was surprised that Maezawa lost his lawsuit over the impersonation ads. It’s hard to judge how much platforms can do, but this ruling could also be taken as a seal of approval for not checking.
I don’t know the details, like whether this involved ordinary posts or ads, but at least when it comes to ads, I want them to be checked. (translated)
A user named Toshi Fujita wrote:
ใจใผใญใใใจใใขใกใชใซใจใใ ใจๅ จใๅฅใฎ็ตๆใซใชใใใใ
— Toshi Fujita@SAKE Street (@SakeTrader) November 10, 2026
ใใใชๅคๆฑบไธใฃใใใไปๅพใๆฅๆฌใฏSNS่ฉๆฌบใฎๅฎ้จๅ ดใซใชใ็ถใใใฎใงใฏ
ใกใฟใจใฎ่จด่จ ๅๆพคๆฐใฎ่ซๆฑใๆฃๅด#Yahooใใฅใผในhttps://t.co/GLhrpPSyvN
In Europe or America, I suspect the result would be completely different.
If rulings like this come down, won’t Japan keep being a testing ground for social media scams?
Lawsuit against Meta: Maezawa’s claims dismissed
#YahooNews
(link to the Yahoo! News article) (translated)
What a 1-Yen Lawsuit Left Behind
Maezawa’s lawsuit got a Japanese court to recognize that impersonation ads infringe the rights of the person impersonated. How much responsibility the company that runs those ads should bear, however, was not settled by this ruling, and the Yokohama ruling did not grant relief to the people who were defrauded.
Neither the celebrities and influencers whose names are borrowed nor the users who see an ad and send money can stop this problem alone. How far the company that earns money from the ads, the government that writes the rules, the banks that control where the money goes, and users themselves will each take responsibility at their own stage is still open. Whether Maezawa appeals, how the remaining cases are decided, and where the debate over legislation goes will shape that division of responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Yusaku Maezawa lose his lawsuit against Meta?
Yes, at the first stage. On November 10, 2026, the Tokyo District Court dismissed his claims for 1 yen in damages and an injunction against Meta and its Japanese unit, while finding that the fake investment ads using his name and face infringed his publicity rights. His lawyer said an appeal was under consideration.
Why did the Tokyo court say Meta was not liable for the fake ads?
According to Bengo4.com’s report of the November 2026 ruling, the court said a third party posted the ads and Meta merely provided the place, that a notice Maezawa sent before the ads appeared did not identify them, and that there was no evidence Meta could have noticed the infringement immediately. Because Meta had stopped most of the ads within two days, the court also saw no need for an injunction.
Have courts elsewhere held Meta responsible for celebrity scam ads?
Yes, in Germany. In September 2026, the Frankfurt Regional Court ordered Meta to stop fake investment ads using the names of a financial comparison company and its chief executive and found Meta obliged to pay damages, saying Meta controls which ads are shown to whom and so cannot rely on the Digital Services Act’s exemption for intermediaries. The ruling was not final when announced.
How big is social media investment fraud in Japan?
According to Japan’s National Police Agency, losses from social media investment fraud reached about 128.8 billion yen in 2025, and in about 40 percent of cases the first contact came through an ad. The figure covers all such fraud, not only cases that began with celebrity impersonation ads.
How did Japanese social media react to the Maezawa ruling?
In the Japanese-language posts on X that we checked from November 10 and 11, 2026, most criticized the ruling. One user said a person whose name was misused should not have to sue, a YouTuber described his own struggle with impersonating accounts, one user argued that suing the advertisers is the proper route, another asked that at least ads be screened, and another suspected Europe or America would rule differently. They are not a measure of opinion in Japan.
Sekahan on YouTube
We publish video summaries of articles like this one, along with short clips built around Japanese reactions.
Reference Links
- Yusaku Maezawa loses 1-yen lawsuit against Meta; court finds publicity rights infringed by Facebook scam ads (Japanese) | Bengo4.com
- Court rejects injunction against “fake ads”; Maezawa loses suit against Meta, Tokyo District Court (Japanese) | nippon.com (Jiji Press)
- Maezawa says “deleting within two days is really a stretch” after Meta ruling (Japanese) | J-CAST News
- Damages claim against Meta over fake investment ads on social media rejected in first ruling of related lawsuits (Japanese) | Nikkei
- Fake-Werbung (German) | Hessen Ordinary Courts
- Fraud statistics for 2025, including social media investment and romance fraud, final figures (Japanese) | National Police Agency
- Social media investment fraud (Japanese) | National Police Agency
- Meta earning a fortune on fraudulent ads, internal documents show | The Star (Reuters)
- Meta’s ‘Playbook’ to Reduce Pressure to Crack Down on Scammers, Protects $7B in Yearly Revenue | Carrier Management (Reuters)
- APP scams reimbursement dashboard | Payment Systems Regulator
- Joint request by seven ministries and agencies to strengthen measures against impersonation scam ads on social media (Japanese) | Digital Agency
