Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has failed to convince a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 29 state attorneys general alleging the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children while hiding the associated risks.
Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a ruling this week denying Meta’s motion to dismiss claims centered on deceptive practices, unfair business conduct, and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The decision represents a significant development in ongoing litigation that accuses the social media giant of prioritizing engagement over the wellbeing of young users.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers determined that Meta failed to comply with the children’s online privacy law regarding notice and parental consent requirements. The court granted summary judgment to the states on this specific issue, eliminating the need for trial on that particular claim.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general from 29 states, alleges that Meta knowingly created features designed to keep children engaged on its platforms despite being aware of potential harm. According to the states’ claims, research demonstrates that children’s use of Facebook and Instagram can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, disruption of education and daily activities, and self-harm including suicide.
In a statement to Breitbart News, a spokesperson wrote: “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. For over a decade, we’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most. We’re proud of the progress we’ve made, and we’re always working to do better.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta characterized the decision as a “critical win” in efforts to hold Meta accountable for what he described as fueling a mental health crisis among American children.
In its defense, Meta argued that the attorneys general lacked evidence demonstrating the company misled consumers about the alleged addictive nature of its platforms. The company specifically pointed to congressional testimony by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. Meta contended that because “social media addiction” is not recognized as an established psychiatric condition, statements claiming its platforms are not addictive cannot be proven false.
However, in her 38-page decision, Judge Gonzalez Rogers identified material factual disputes regarding whether Meta’s social media platforms are indeed addictive, whether the company falsely denied designing them to be addictive, and whether Meta “partially” directed the platforms toward children.
“The AGs present a reasonable interpretation of [Meta’s] statements that Facebook and Instagram are not designed in ways that cause teens to compulsively use the platforms to their detriment,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote in her opinion. “To the extent plaintiffs’ evidence shows that the platforms are in fact designed to do just that, a jury could reasonably find the statements were untrue to a reasonable person.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also oversees related multidistrict litigation involving more than 2,600 individuals, school districts, and local governments. This broader legal action examines whether social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Google’s YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok create addictive experiences for children.
Breitbart News reported in March that Meta was found negligent in a landmark child social media addiction case:
In a precedent-setting verdict, jurors in the high profile social media addiction trial deliberated for more than 40 hours across nine days before determining that both Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms. The jury concluded that each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who testified that her childhood use of social media created an addiction to the technology and aggravated her mental health problems.
The multimillion-dollar award is expected to increase significantly, as jurors determined that the companies acted with malice or highly egregious conduct. This finding means the jury will soon hear additional evidence and return to deliberations to decide on punitive damages, which could substantially raise the total compensation.
Meta and Google-owned YouTube were the final two defendants remaining in the case after TikTok and Snap reached settlements before the trial commenced. The plaintiff, identified in court documents as KGM and referred to as Kaley by her legal team during proceedings, provided testimony alongside high-profile technology executives. Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri appeared as witnesses, while YouTube CEO Neal Mohan was not called to testify.
Read more at Reuters here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of AI, free speech, and online censorship.
Read the full article here