Several property management companies in the Washington, D.C. area advertised rental properties on Facebook, but only to users aged 50 and younger. Plaintiff, a 55-year-old woman, never saw these ads while searching for housing. She sued, claiming the companies discriminated against her based on age.
Plaintiff argued that by excluding users over 50 from seeing the ads, the companies deprived her of housing opportunities and information. She asked the court for a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and damages. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that she lacked standing because she had not suffered a concrete injury. She sought review with the Fourth Circuit.
The appellate court upheld the dismissal. The court explained that to have standing, a plaintiff must show an injury that is real, personal, and specific. Plaintiff’s claim failed because she did not allege that she had directly been denied housing or misled by the defendants. She also did not prove that, even without age targeting, she would have seen the ads. Facebook’s algorithm determined ad distribution based on multiple factors, not just age. The court also rejected her argument that she suffered stigma from the companies’ ad practices, finding that she had not been personally affected in a way that would give her standing to sue.
Three reasons why this case matters:
- Simply being part of a group that may have been treated unfairly is not enough; a plaintiff must show personal harm.
- Businesses using demographic filters in online ads may be shielded from lawsuits unless a plaintiff can prove direct harm.
- The ruling highlights that courts do not recognize speculative or abstract injuries as grounds for a lawsuit.
Opiotennione v. Bozzuto Mgmt. Co., 2025 WL 678636 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)