THE HIGH COURT has allowed Denis O’Brien to add more than 370 names to defamation proceedings the businessman has brought over a series of allegedly fake, malicious and misleading advertisements featuring him that were posted on platforms operated by Meta.

As well as suing Dublin-based Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, which is the social media giant’s European HQ, O’Brien is suing the parties he claims are behind the adverts.

However, the court was told that the names of the additional persons he is suing will all be listed in the proceedings as “John and Jane Doe” as the businessman’s lawyers says they been unable to ascertain with exact certainty who are behind the advertisements.

The John and Jane Does are all linked to IP addresses and phone numbers associated with over 40 advert accounts which allegedly paid for and had ads posted on Metas platforms.

The court heard that the ads were viewed by thousands of Meta users in Ireland and other EU countries.

Paul O’Higgins SC, appearing with David Allen Bl for Mr O’Brien told the High Court on Wednesday that late last month the businessman secured a disclosure order, known as a Norwich Pharmacal order, requiring Meta to provide details to assist him in identifying those who have placed and paid for the adverts on the social media firm’s platforms.

The information sought included the full names of those who have paid for and have placed the adverts, their email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, the date time and IP addresses of all the login and logouts for each of the relevant accounts, and details of the payment methods linked to the relevant accounts.

Meta, represented in court by Claire Hogan Bl. had neither objected to nor opposed the making of that order.

Mr O’Higgins said while the disclosure order was made late last month, that in recent days his side had received 12,000 pages of documents from Meta from which it had to extract the information the businessman needed to add the other parties to the proceedings.

Counsel said that those who want to brining defamation proceedings must do within 12 months of becoming aware of the defamatory material.

In Mr O’Brien’s case, he had first come aware of the adverts last August, so that deadline was fast approaching.

Counsel said from his side’s investigations to date the information furnished had revealed hundreds of IP addresses and phone numbers linked to the Meta advert accounts which have posted the allegedly defamatory adverts.

Those details are linked to countries including Japan, Myanmar, the Philippines, Brazil.

New Zealand, Columbia, United States, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Canada, counsel said.

Counsel said that it was not certain if the phone numbers and IP addresses have been masked and their true locations concealed.

Counsel said his side was further concerned by correspondence from Meta which said that some of the advert accounts may have been interfered with by third parties and that some innocent parties could end being sued.

Counsel said that while the issue had been raised by Meta, it had not informed to his client exactly which accounts may have been compromised by third parties or when.

In reply, Ms Hogan said her client had fully complied with the Norwich Pharmacal order and rejected any claim that Meta had delayed or had provided the material in an incorrect format.

Counsel added her client was prepared to provide Mr O’Brien with details of which accounts were interfered with and when they had been compromised by third parties.

Counsel added that the provision of such information falls outside the terms of a Norwich Pharmacal order.

The orders were granted by Ms Justice Carmel Stewart, during Wednesday’s vacation sitting of the Court.

The judge said that she was satisfied based on the evidence before the court to add the names of the entities identified by the plaintiff’s lawyers to the proceedings.

The judge also granted other orders including granting the plaintiff permission to serve details of proceedings on the newly added defendants, which are believed to be outside of the EU.

Mr O’Brien claims that since August 2023 his name and imaged have been used in a series of fake adverts, which are being used in “a clear campaign to promote dubious financial schemes including cryptocurrency investments” to users of the social media platform’s services via Meta Ads.

The businessman says he has nothing to do with the schemes advertised on the Facebook and Instagram.

Some of the ads in question show footage of manipulated and merged interviews of Mr O’Brien, s and include statements that he never made about various products and services he has nothing to do with.

He claims the advertisements breach his rights to privacy, and his good name, his rights under GDPR and his property rights.

As a result, he seeks damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, unlawful appropriate of his property, passing off, and for various alleged breaches of the Data Protection Laws and his constitutional rights.

The fake ads, he claims, breach EU laws on fraud and deception, spam, and in relation to the integrity and authentic identity of account holders.

As well as seeking damages he also seeks injunctions restraining the further publication of statements about him through the Meta Ad tool, and orders preventing his name and image being linked or connected to any endorsement of any financial product or service or cryptocurrency trading product without prior notification to the businessman.

The matter will return before the courts later this year.