This kind of thing has come up before with "murder for hire" advertisements [1]. The publishers were only found liable when the advertisement was very explicit. Seems like the bar is quite high and courts are currently unwilling to impose "undue burden" on publishers.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_of_Fortune_(magazine)#...

There is a conflict between "publishers should be responsible for everything they publish" and "a free press".

If you have to buy a newspaper to publish your info, that is quite a high bar.

At the same time, none of us* want malware scum to use newspaper ads to fleece people.

*OK, some of us write malware scum. I don't count their opinions as valid.