Saudi Arabia Requires Social Media Influencers to Obtain License to Publish Ad Content

Saudi authorities to issue licenses to allow individuals to advertise on social media.. (AFP)
Saudi authorities to issue licenses to allow individuals to advertise on social media.. (AFP)
TT

Saudi Arabia Requires Social Media Influencers to Obtain License to Publish Ad Content

Saudi authorities to issue licenses to allow individuals to advertise on social media.. (AFP)
Saudi authorities to issue licenses to allow individuals to advertise on social media.. (AFP)

Saudi Arabia’s General Commission for Audiovisual Media issued a decision requiring individuals to obtain a license to publish advertisement content on their personal social media platform.

“This move will help regulate the advertising sector and digital content in the Kingdom,” the authority said.

It called on those who wish to obtain the “Mawthooq” license to apply for it through the “Ilam” platform. The license costs SAR15000 ($4,000) and is valid for three years.

Twitter users welcomed the decision, saying it will help control digital content, improve “moral standards” of influencers and limit some of their violations, which in turn will help them improve their judgment on what to publish.

Conditions to receive the license include adhering to the commission's regulations, as well as the content, advertising, and rating (including age rating) controls and pledging to provide any data or information or reports it requests.

License holders must delete any media content immediately and without objection upon the commission’s request, and ensure that they only publish their advertisement on an account registered with the Authority and linked to the obtained license.

Non-Saudis must not to engage in any advertising activity before obtaining the necessary licenses and approvals.

Saudi influencer Abdullah al-Sabaa told Asharq Al-Awsat that filling out the license application form took him only a few minutes. He said the procedure was smooth and simple and that his license was issued in less than 12 hours.

The decision benefits consumers and preserves their rights, and it helps organize the advertising process between the influencer and advertisers, he remarked.

“This will help regulate the advertising market on social media,” Sabaa stressed, adding that consumers can now hold influencers accountable if they advertise any unlicensed or fraudulent product.

The influencer will now become the only party responsible for his published content and must ensure that the advertised products are licensed by the Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization (SASO), the influencer explained.

He added that influencers must also ensure that the online stores are registered on the “Maroof” platform to ensure the quality of the products.

Saudi advertisers inside the Kingdom and abroad can benefit from the license.

However, Gulf citizens can obtain commercial registration and advertising licenses, while foreigners residing in the Gulf must obtain an individual license by contracting with a licensed local advertising agency or by obtaining an investment license in accordance with the rules and regulations.



US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
TT

US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)

The US Supreme Court sidestepped on Friday a decision on whether to allow shareholders to proceed with a securities fraud lawsuit accusing Meta's Facebook of misleading investors about the misuse of the social media platform's user data.
The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 6, dismissed Facebook's appeal of a lower court's ruling that had allowed a 2018 class action led by Amalgamated Bank to proceed. The Supreme Court opted not resolve the underlying legal dispute, determining that the case should not have been taken up. Its action leaves the lower court's decision in place, Reuters reported. 
The court's dismissal came in a one-line order that provided no explanation. The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. The other one, involving the artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, was argued on Nov. 13. The Supreme Court has not ruled yet in the Nvidia case.
The plaintiffs in the Facebook case claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users. They accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks. Facebook's stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump's successful US presidential campaign in 2016. The investors have sought unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Facebook stock they held.
At issue was whether Facebook broke the law when it failed to detail the prior data breach in subsequent business-risk disclosures, and instead portrayed the risk of such incidents as purely hypothetical.
Facebook argued that it was not required to reveal that its warned-of risk had already materialized because "a reasonable investor" would understand risk disclosures to be forward-looking statements. President Joe Biden's administration supported the shareholders in the case.
US District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals revived it.
The Cambridge Analytica data breach prompted US government investigations into Facebook's privacy practices, various lawsuits and a US congressional hearing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million. Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the US Federal Trade Commission over the issue.
The Supreme Court in prior rulings has limited the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that polices securities fraud.