As this CNN article points out, there are some limitations to the “anything goes” nature of political adverts content brought on by litigation:
Facebook's advertising policies state "ads must not contain content that infringes upon or violates the rights of any third party, including copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity or other personal or proprietary rights."
In the recent past, much has been made of the lack of any responsibility for the truthfulness of political adverts on FB. Basically, if it’s a political advert, you can write anything including outright lies about your candidate and/or their opponent and it is OK with FB. This exception to the “anything goes” rule is interesting in concept as it bans the use of material which damages a third party, in this case, the BBC.
Can a case be made that each of the the recipients of the lying ads are also a valid “third party” who is being damaged by the content used in the adverts or is this just restricted to damages suffered by a large, corporation with lots of TV channels they control and solicitors on staff? Oh, that’s right…. “We the People” have no right to be told the Truth by our politicians [or any other FB advertisers] too bad we cannot copyright our voting decisions to create standing in this decision. Heck, this is a British lawyer v/ lawyer case anyway so its decisions will not have anything to do with cases here in the States where stare decisis [already decided] doesn’t hold true for anything that is inconvenient to the Conservative power brokers like Roe v/ Wade, et al.