Bhblasted S.R.L. Societa Benefit and Ors v Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Bolger
• Judgment Date: 04 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 699
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2025/3613 P]

Between

Bhblasted S.R.L. Societa' Benefit, Bhbroke S.R.L. and Bhnailed S.R.L.

Plaintiffs

and

Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 699

[Record No. 2025/3613 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Injunctive relief – Strong case – Balance of justice – Plaintiffs seeking interlocutory injunctive relief – Whether the balance of justice rested with the plaintiffs

Facts: The defendant, Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, on 20 December 2024, disabled the advertising accounts of the plaintiffs, Bhblasted S.R.L. Societa Benefit, Bhbroke S.R.L. and Bhnailed S.R.L., and retained their pre-payments. The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for interlocutory injunctive relief requiring the defendant to restore the accounts, along with additional or alternative reliefs that they said could be crafted by the court. They said that they sought to restore the status quo to allow them to continue trading pending the resolution of the proceedings. They claimed that they had a contractual right to notice and a contractual right to engage with the defendant to resolve any difficulties before their accounts were disabled in the manner that they were, which they said arose from the course of dealings between the parties. They disputed any right on the part of the defendant to retain any prepaid balance in reliance on their course of dealings with the defendant. They submitted that the balance of justice rested with them given their ongoing loss of clients, goodwill and market position, their inability to service existing customers and their jeopardy to tax and regulatory compliance due to their loss of access to invoicing records.

Held by Bolger J that the plaintiffs had not satisfied her that there was a strong case they would succeed at trial in securing the injunctive or other relief that they sought. She was not satisfied that they had established a breach in the terms of their contract with the defendant. She held that the plaintiffs had not established a strong case that the course of dealings via WhatsApp messages contained representations of continued access once monies are paid such as could give rise to the estoppel for which the plaintiffs contended. She held that the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants had breached provisions of the Digital Services Act 2024 did not give rise to injunctive relief. The plaintiffs had not established a strong case of abuse of a dominant position as she had not been satisfied that s. 5 of the Competition Act 2022 was engaged. She held that the plaintiffs had not established a strong case that they were entitled to interlocutory relief to obtain their billing and invoice documentation held by the defendant. She was not satisfied that the express terms and conditions to which the plaintiffs agreed in consideration of placing their clients’ advertisements on the platform should be disapplied in the context of the interlocutory application. She held that if the plaintiffs were correct about the defendant’s unlawful retention of its monies, that could be addressed by appropriate orders at trial. For those reasons, she was satisfied that the balance of justice rested against the granting of the interlocutory relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Bolger J refused the interlocutory injunctive relief sought and declined to craft alternative relief including the return of monies retained by the defendant or access to the plaintiffs’ billing and other records.

Application refused.

Counsel for the plaintiffs: William Abrahamson SC, Donnchadh Woulfe BL.

Counsel for the defendant: Kelley Smith SC, Gerard Downey BL.

Judgment of Ms. Justice Bolger dated the 4 ^th day of December 2025

Introduction

1 . This is the plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunctive relief requiring the defendant to restore the accounts held by each of the plaintiffs with the defendant, along with additional or alternative reliefs that the plaintiffs say can be crafted by the court. Whilst the court does have jurisdiction to craft remedies different or in addition to that sought, ideally the court's focus should be on the remedy that the plaintiff has sought and on which the affidavit evidence of both parties is based.

2 . For the reasons set out below, I am refusing this application.

Background

3 . The plaintiff companies are registered in Italy and are involved in organising clients to advertise on social media especially using the features of the defendant's Meta platform (hereinafter referred to as “the platform”). The plaintiffs have placed large numbers of advertisements on the platform over many years via their accounts with the defendant, for which substantial payment was made, including pre-payments that the defendant required to be made before advertisements were placed on the platform.

4 . On 20 of December 2024, the defendant summarily and without any explanation, disabled the plaintiffs' advertising accounts thereby removing approximately 11,560 of the plaintiffs' clients' advertisements. The plaintiffs could not place any new advertisements on the platform and were denied access to their invoice and billing records held by the defendant. The defendant retained the plaintiffs' pre-payments which the plaintiffs say amounted to approximately €5 million.

The submissions of the parties

5 . The plaintiffs say they seek to restore the status quo to allow them to continue trading pending the resolution of the proceedings. They aver that the disablement of their accounts has paralysed their operations causing immediate and escalating financial, operational and reputational harm, jeopardised their regulatory and tax compliance due to loss of access to invoicing and billing records and has threatened the viability of their business and the employment of a significant number of people. They maintain that the defendant's conduct is unlawful as a breach of contract and of representations made by the defendant in the established course of the parties' dealings, constitutes an abuse of the defendant's dominant position contrary to section 5 of the Competition Act 2002 (which is pleaded in the Plenary Summons) and breaches the defendant's obligations under the Digital Services Act 2024 (which is not pleaded). The plaintiffs say that they have established a strong case for the relief sought. They assert that damages would not be an adequate remedy for them and that the balance of convenience therefore favours the interlocutory relief sought to prevent irreparable harm, preserve their assets and maintain the commercial status quo ante pending plenary hearing.

6 . The plaintiffs claim they have a contractual right to notice and a contractual right to engage with the defendant to resolve any difficulties before their accounts are disabled in the manner that they were, which they say arises from the course of dealings between the parties. The plaintiffs aver that explicit and implicit representations were made to them including that, provided spending targets were met, they would have ongoing access to the platform which would not be terminated without cause or warning. The plaintiffs rely on the vast number of WhatsApp messages between the parties but significantly, they do not identify any specific representation confirming the rights (to notice and to engagement before accounts are disabled) for which they now contend. The plaintiffs' counsel accepted that he could not point to an explicit representation that payment of more money would permit ongoing access but says that was because of the “ organic nature of the communication between the parties over a long period of time” (Transcript at page 21). The plaintiffs do not challenge the written terms and conditions applicable to their contracts with the defendant but describe them as “ nominal” and contend that the terms were qualified by the representations the plaintiffs say were made in the course of previous dealings, which the plaintiffs say gives rise to an estoppel because the defendant was precluded from “ strictly relying on those terms and conditions, where we have relied to our detriment, on explicit or implicit representations that that's not how things work” (Transcript at page 25).

7 . The plaintiffs dispute any right on the part of the defendant to retain any prepaid balance in reliance on their course of dealings with the defendant. The grounding affidavit avers, at paragraph 37, that pre-payments were made to the defendant “ on the basis of specific demands and representations that the Plaintiff Group would continue to have access to the Defendant's platforms”. The plaintiffs have not identified any such specific demands and representations but rely on pages and pages of WhatsApp messages between them and the defendant's agents.

8 . The plaintiffs submit that the balance of justice rests with them given their ongoing loss of clients, goodwill and market position, their inability to service existing customers and their jeopardy to tax and regulatory compliance due to their loss of access to invoicing records. They say damages are not an adequate remedy because the ongoing retention of significant cash impairs operational visibility and investor and client relationships and raises tax and accounting risks because of their inability to access the billing data that was stored in their accounts that the defendant has disabled. The plaintiffs' affidavit sets out tables of expenditure, balances and prepayments as of December 2024, showing turnover and profits for quarter one of 2024 and quarter one of 2025, which were stated to have been prepared from information taken from the plaintiffs' management accounts. Those management accounts, or any other financial documentation, have not been exhibited, which makes it difficult to interrogate the plaintiffs' claims of loss and inadequacy of damages.

9 . The defendants cite the passage of 204 days from when the accounts were disabled to when the within application was...