The attorneys general have alleged that despite research showing Facebook and Instagram use is associated with depression and other mental health issues, Meta won’t remove the platforms’ harmful features. — Reuters
Meta Platforms Inc. must face a lawsuit by dozens of state attorneys general alleging it knowingly contributed to a youth mental health crisis by getting kids hooked on social media.
A federal judge in California 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.
US 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 - have profited from the addiction of young people to their products. Tuesday’s ruling involves only the allegations brought by the state attorneys general against Meta.
The attorneys general have alleged that despite research showing Facebook and Instagram use is associated with depression and other mental health issues, Meta won’t remove the platforms’ harmful features. They also claimed that Meta unlawfully collected data of children under 13 years old. In October, TikTok was sued over similar claims in 13 state courts and in Washington, DC. The states accused the company of deceiving users about its child safety tools and using harmful features to keep children on the platform longer to maximise profits. A TikTok spokesperson called the claims "inaccurate and misleading.”
A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the overall ruling even while it welcomes the dismissal of some claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a longstanding federal law shielding internet companies from lawsuits.
"We’ve developed numerous tools to support parents and teens, and we recently announced that we’re significantly 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 stock fell about 1% after the ruling to US$581.77 (RM2,496) before rising to US$586.27 (RM2,515) at the close of New York trading.
Rogers said "Meta’s alleged yearslong public campaign of deception as to the risks” of social media addiction and mental health harm to children is a potential violation of state and federal laws against deceptive and unfair business practices. But she said Section 230 "provides a fairly significant limitation on these claims.”
Section 230 prevents the states from challenging certain platform features such as "infinite scroll” and the display of likes on a post, Rogers said. But the states can challenge "appearance-altering filters” that allegedly promotes body dysmorphia among young people, she said, while declining to dismiss claims about the company’s failure to warn about the known risks of addiction.
The judge also ruled on individual personal injury claims brought against the major social media platforms brought on behalf of hundreds of children, adolescents and young adults. She concluded that some claims based on violations of consumer protection laws can proceed.
Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, hailed the decision, saying it confirms that the companies "must face our claims that they failed to warn of significant risks to users’ safety and mental health, and that they engaged in deceptive marketing and business tactics.”
The social media companies also face hundreds of lawsuits by public school districts alleging the platforms have created a public nuisance. The companies won a ruling in June dismissing claims filed by some districts in state court in Los Angeles. Rogers has yet to rule on a request for dismissal of cases consolidated in her 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
