IP Law Daily, PUBLICITY RIGHTS—3d Cir.: Appeals court issues mixed ruling in former Gov. Huckabee’s CBD ads lawsuit against Meta, (Jul 7, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

Court affirms order denying Huckabee’s motion to amend or alter judgment but partially vacated the dismissal of one claim.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a nonprecedential mixed decision in former Arkansas Governor (and current U.S. Ambassador to Israel) Mike Huckabee’s suit against Meta. The claims arose from advertisements on Facebook which falsely linked Huckabee, who has identified politically as an opponent to marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) products, to CBD products. Meta attempted to claim immunity but was ruled against by the trial court. However, that court found that Huckabee’s complaint failed to allege the necessary mental state against Meta to impose liability. The lower court dismissed the suit, and Huckabee filed a motion for relief from judgment seeking to amend his pleadings to add additional allegations regarding Meta’s mental state. The trial court denied the motion, finding that even the amended pleadings did not reach the needed mental state allegations. Huckabee appealed from that dismissal, and the appellate court affirmed the lower court in part, but also partially vacated the dismissal of one claim under Arkansas’s Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act (FBPPA) (Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-2347 (3d Cir. Jun. 23, 2026)).

Dispute. Huckabee alleged in his suit that unidentified third parties had posted on Facebook three advertisements that used his name, photograph, and likeness without his authority, and falsely claimed that he endorses, and/or was cured by, CBD products. Huckabee alleged Meta approved and maintained these advertisements on Facebook, and that its algorithms determine content to be sent to Facebook users such that Facebook is culpable for the damage he alleges the ads have caused.

Huckabee brought claims under Arkansas state law. He alleged (1) violation of the FBPPA, (2) common law invasion of privacy (appropriation), (3) common law invasion of privacy (false light), and (4) unjust enrichment. Meta moved to dismiss all claims. While Meta was unsuccessful in seeking immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the failure of Huckabee to meet the required mental state allegations led the lower court to dismiss the case.

Lower court analysis. The lower court found that the appropriation claim was pre-empted by the FBPPA, the unjust enrichment claim required a finding of fault, the FBPPA claim required scienter, and the false light claim required malice. Even in his amended pleadings, the court found that the FBPPA allegations made it possible that Meta knew of the misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness, but it was not plausible that Meta had either actual or constructive knowledge of the misuse.

In the initial pleading, Huckabee had alleged “Meta approved and maintained these advertisements with actual malice or, at least, with reckless disregard,” which the Court found to be merely conclusory (see Meta denied immunity under CDA Section 230 for ads approved and maintained on Facebook, (Nov. 20, 2024)).

Third Circuit ruling. The appellate court noted that the original complaint stated that one of the advertisements displayed on Facebook’s platform linked to a website falsely purporting to be a Fox News article. The appellate court held, “That bogus link, when coupled with the unusual association of Huckabee and CBD and the prior fraudulent CBD advertisements on Facebook, suffices for allegations that Meta was plausibly ‘aware of facts or circumstances’ from which the advertisements’ misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness was ‘apparent.’”

Accordingly, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the FBPPA claim for consideration of Meta’s remaining challenge to the claim’s adequacy (the commercial benefit argument) based on the allegations in the original complaint. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, explaining that Huckabee could have presented the additional allegations before the entry of judgment.

The Case is No. 25-2347.

Judge: Phipps, P.

Attorneys: Sean J. Bellew (Bellew, LLC) for Mike Huckabee. Walter F. Brown, Jr. (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP) for Meta Platforms, Inc.

Companies: Meta Platforms, Inc.

Cases: PublicityRights DelawareNews NewJerseyNews PennsylvaniaNews