Meta asked a federal judge in Oakland to rule in his favor before he went to trial, but then-nominee Barack Obama ruled against him.
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) – A federal judge has denied several attempts by Meta to quash a lawsuit over claims that the social media giant has ensnared young people into addictive behavior, harming their mental and physical health through illegal and deceptive practices.
However, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on one issue in the sprawling case brought by about two dozen states — that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, failed to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act.
States, which raised the case in 2023 in the Northern District of California, have argued that Meta built its business by maximizing new users’ time on its platforms by using psychologically manipulative platform features. They accuse Mark Zuckerberg’s company of publishing misleading reports and refusing to address the negative effects.
Meta filed motions seeking to dismiss the claims of fraud, unfairness and COPPA violations, with the states filing cross-motions. Barack Obama’s appointee denied all motions except the states’ claim that Meta failed to comply with COPPA.
“Meta’s denial strains credibility,” Rogers wrote in Monday’s ruling. “Meta has repeatedly asked not to comply, based on this attitude, he has not done so.”
The trial is set for August.
Meta moved for summary judgment on all of the state’s claims, which Rogers denied.
Addressing the fraud claims, the judge noted that the states offered more than 100 potentially misleading statements made by Meta’s representatives. Meta argued that they should prevail because social media addiction does not exist and states cannot prove it. Meta also said that his statements were not knowingly false, as the science of social media addiction is uncertain.
“The AG Plaintiffs cite internal Meta documents to support their theory that Meta’s platforms cause addictive use by adolescents,” Rogers wrote. “Plaintiffs’ experts opine that Meta’s platforms are designed in addictive ways.”
Rogers also ruled that the states have shown sufficient evidence to raise a material dispute of fact whether Meth’s products were designed to be addictive.
The judge took issue with Meta’s argument that some of the statements were unrelated to business, trade or commerce. He said some state laws require misrepresentations to occur in connection with a consumer transaction. Others should be in the course of business.
“Meta will have the opportunity at trial to present its argument that the statements were not sufficiently directed to consumers or were otherwise not made in the course of commerce,” Rogers wrote. “Sufficient for the purposes of this motion, Meta knows that the information provided to public revenue is widely reported to consumers.”
The states moved for cross-motions for summary judgment on a small number of claims, including the statements of commerce. Rogers denied them, writing in that instance that the states failed to properly identify the statements in question.
Addressing Meta’s claims of injustice, the judge denied them as well.
The judge found that there is a triable issue as to whether the design of the platforms harms teenagers by causing compulsive use.
“For example, Meta’s own documents support plaintiff’s theory that the time restriction tools were simply a ‘public relations ploy’ used because defendant knew that more time spent on social media was associated with negative outcomes for adolescents,” Rogers wrote.
As for COPPA, Meta said it only applies to websites aimed at children or operators who know their users are under 13 — neither of which apply to him.
The states’ cross-motion sought summary judgment, since Meta knew it had users younger than 13 and failed to comply with COPPA’s parental consent requirements.
As with many other arguments, Rogers determined that there was a factual dispute and that children, at least in part, could be the targets of social media platforms.
“As our lawsuit alleges, Meta is prioritizing profits over children’s safety and violating consumer protection laws left and right,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “We have secured a critical victory that blocks Meta’s attempt to dismiss our case and helps pave the way to hold the California tech giant accountable for its role in fueling America’s children’s mental health crisis.”
An attorney for Meta referred his client for comment, who could not immediately be reached.
During a landmark trial in Los Angeles earlier this year, jurors struck down both Meta and Google $6 million verdict about the mental health damage social media caused to a woman, known in court only as Kaley GM.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
