The High Court has refused to order Meta Platforms Ireland to restore advertising accounts operated by three Italian companies while their wider commercial dispute proceeds to trial.
Ms Justice Bolger delivered judgment on 4 December 2025 in proceedings brought by BHBlasted S.r.l. Societa’ Benefit, BHBroke S.r.l. and BHNailed S.r.l., companies involved in arranging social-media advertising for clients.
Meta disabled the companies’ advertising accounts on 20 December 2024, removing about 11,560 client advertisements. The plaintiffs said the move paralysed their operations and left Meta holding approximately €5 million in prepaid funds. They also complained that they lost access to billing and invoice records.
The companies argued that their longstanding dealings with Meta gave them contractual rights to warning and engagement before any suspension. They also alleged breach of contract, abuse of a dominant position and breaches connected with digital-services legislation.
Meta disputed those claims and relied on its written terms and conditions. It also produced screenshots of advertisements it described as scams and argued that the plaintiffs had contractual responsibility for ensuring advertisements placed through their accounts complied with Meta’s rules.
The court held that the plaintiffs had not established the strong case necessary for a mandatory injunction. Ms Justice Bolger found no sufficiently clear evidence that Meta had represented that the accounts could not be suspended without notice or prior engagement, while the written contractual terms appeared to permit suspension and retention of prepaid funds.
The judge also noted that the companies had not used Meta’s available review and complaints procedures and had waited months before seeking urgent court relief.
Even if the strong-case threshold had been met, the court found that the balance of justice favoured refusing the injunction. The plaintiffs’ claimed commercial losses could potentially be compensated by damages, while forcing Meta to restore the accounts could interfere with its ability to enforce advertising standards.
The court also declined to order repayment of prepaid funds or interim access to billing records. Costs were provisionally reserved to the trial judge, with further argument listed for 16 December 2025.