Meta can’t escape states’ claims that children are addicted to platforms

Meta Platforms Inc. faces a lawsuit filed by dozens of state attorneys general alleging it knowingly contributed to a youth mental health crisis by getting children addicted to social media.

A California federal judge on Tuesday sided with 34 attorneys general in allowing some of the claims over Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms to proceed in sprawling litigation over the harmful effects of social media.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who issued the ruling, is overseeing hundreds of lawsuits alleging that a handful of social media companies — including Google’s YouTube, ByteDance’s TikTok and Snap, as well as Meta — profited from the dependence of young people on their products. Tuesday’s ruling only addresses allegations made by state attorneys general against Meta.

The attorneys general claimed that despite research showing that Facebook and Instagram use is associated with depression and other mental health issues, Meta would not remove harmful features from the platforms. They also claimed that Meta illegally collected data from children under the age of 13. In October, TikTok was sued over similar allegations in 13 state courts and in Washington, DC. The states accused the company of misleading users about its child safety tools and using harmful features to keep children on the platform longer to maximize profits. A TikTok spokesperson called the claims “inaccurate and misleading.”

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the overall ruling, although it welcomed the dismissal of some claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , a long-standing federal law protecting internet companies from lawsuits.

“We’ve developed many tools to help parents and teens, and we recently announced that we’re dramatically changing the Instagram experience for tens of millions of teens with new teen accounts, a protected experience for teens that automatically limits who can contact them and the content they see,” the spokesperson said in an email. “We believe the evidence will demonstrate our commitment to supporting young people.”

Meta’s shares fell about 1% after the decision to US$581.77 (RM2,496) before recovering to US$586.27 (RM2,515) at the close of trading in New York.

Rogers said Meta’s “purported years-long public campaign of deception about the risks” of social media addiction and harm to children’s mental health is a potential violation of state and federal laws against deceptive marketing practices and unfair. But she said Section 230 “provides a fairly reasonable framework.” significant limitation of these assertions.

Section 230 prevents states from challenging certain platform features such as “infinite scrolling” and displaying likes on a post, Rogers said. But states can challenge “appearance-altering filters” that allegedly promote body dysmorphia among young people, she said. , while refusing to dismiss allegations that the company failed to warn of known addiction risks.

The judge also ruled on individual personal injury claims filed against major social media platforms on behalf of hundreds of children, adolescents and young adults. It concluded that certain claims based on violations of consumer protection laws can be pursued.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, saying it confirms that the companies “must confront our claims that they failed to warn of significant risks to the safety and mental health of users and that they engaged in deceptive marketing. and business tactics.

Social media companies also face hundreds of lawsuits from public school districts alleging the platforms have created a public nuisance. The companies won a judgment in June dismissing complaints filed by some districts in state court in Los Angeles. Rogers has not yet ruled on a request to dismiss the consolidated cases by his court.

The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc., 4:23-cv-05448, US District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland). -Bloomberg