Court Dismisses Discrimination Claims from Facebook User Who Didn’t Get Wanted (?) Ads–Shah v. Woodbury

Shah alleges that “Woodbury and Facebook denied Shah, based on his age and gender, access to information about Woodbury’s educational services by choosing to make Woodbury’s advertisements on Facebook available only to a target demographic of female Facebook users between the ages of 18 and 24.” Shah, a 37 year old man, sued Woodbury (pro se) for Unruh Act violations. Shah did not sue Facebook, even though the court says “Facebook is central to Shah’s complaint.”

Shah’s theory is that “Woodbury aided and abetted Facebook in Facebook’s denying Shah, based on his age and gender, full access to the information-providing services Facebook offers its users.” The problem is that, irrespective of the advertiser’s parameters, Facebook doesn’t show ads to every consumer who meets the demographic targeting criteria. Thus:

the complaint alleges that, regardless of what audience selection Woodbury made, Facebook was going to engage in the conduct constituting the Unruh Act violation that caused Shah harm. Woodbury instructing Facebook to do something Facebook would do anyway as a standard practice cannot constitute Woodbury substantially assisting or substantially encouraging Facebook to engage in that conduct….

The complaint repeatedly alleges Facebook employs its allegedly discriminatory advertisement delivery algorithm regardless of the audience an advertiser like Woodbury selects. These allegations cannot support that Woodbury substantially assisted Facebook in limiting, based on age and gender, the audience of Facebook users for Woodbury’s advertisements. Indeed, the allegations are inconsistent with Woodbury providing such assistance.

The Liapes ruling doesn’t change the outcome:

Liapes held the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that Facebook—which, unlike here, was a named defendant in the case—substantially assisted nonparty advertisers in violating the Unruh Act, not that the advertisers assisted Facebook.

Case Citation: Shah v. Woodbury University, Inc., 2025 WL 3041782 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 31, 2025)