A federal judge last week declined a Loveland man’s request to block Facebook from showing him advertisements he deemed pornographic, and which left him feeling traumatized and sexually harassed.

Alfred P. Reaud filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Meta Platforms, Inc., which owns Facebook. Reaud documented 93 “unwanted gross and offensive pornographic ads” he has seen on Facebook since 2021, and he seeks more than $1.5 million in damages against the company.

On March 21, Reaud requested a preliminary injunction to block Facebook from showing him pornographic ads that allegedly violate its own policies. Reaud attached screenshots of ads he considered offensive, one of which depicted a woman placing a carrot in her underwear and another showed a woman with a white substance on her face.

“This unwanted pornographic content leaves Reaud feeling as if a sexual predator or molester is reaching out and touching him, and he is unable to defend himself,” wrote Reaud, who is representing himself in court.

But U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang denied his request for a preliminary injunction. She noted that Reaud needed to demonstrate how he would likely succeed on the merits of his case, that he would suffer “irreparable harm” without court intervention and that an injunction would be in the public’s interest.

“Mr. Reaud fails to discuss any of the factors in the PI Motion,” Wang wrote in a brief order on April 13.

Reaud’s underlying lawsuit seeks to hold Meta liable for sexual harassment and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. Reaud alleged he is “forced to view” pornographic content while he browses Facebook, and the trauma inflicted by his exposure to “unwanted gross pornography is not measurable.”

Meta advanced several arguments in urging Wang to deny the preliminary injunction and dismiss Reaud’s case. First, it noted Facebook’s terms require users to file claims in the Northern District of California or in state court in San Mateo County. Second, the company contended “sexual harassment” is not a proper legal claim under California law.

Meta also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a hotly-contested federal provision that provides immunity to certain online platforms that publish third-party content. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the scope of that immunity as applied to the use of algorithms.

Finally, Meta suggested if Reaud did not want to see offensive content, he should log off.

“Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that he would suffer irreparable harm,” wrote the company’s lawyers, “because, to the extent Plaintiff has concerns about the advertisements he is seeing on Facebook, he can simply stop using the Facebook service.”

The case is Reaud v. Facebook, Inc.