Judge orders trial for Meta over social media harms

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge has denied several attempts by Meta to scuttle a lawsuit over claims the social media giant has ensnared youth in addictive behaviors, damaging their mental and physical health through unlawful, deceptive acts.

However, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on one issue in the sprawling case filed by some two dozen states — that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, failed to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act.

The states, which filed the case in 2023 in the Northern District of California, have argued that Meta built its business on maximizing young users’ time on its platforms, using psychologically manipulative platform features. They accuse Mark Zuckerberg’s company of publishing misleading reports and refusing to address the adverse effects.

Meta filed motions seeking to dismiss claims of deception, unfairness and violations of COPPA, with the states filing cross-motions. The Barack Obama appointee denied all motions, except the states’ claim that Meta didn’t abide by COPPA.

“Meta’s denial strains credulity,” Rogers wrote in the Monday decision. “Meta has repeatedly urged that it need not comply. Based on this position, it has not.”

A trial is set for August.

Meta sought summary judgment on all state claims, which Rogers denied in turn.

Addressing the deception claims, the judge noted the states offered more than 100 potentially deceptive statements made by Meta representatives. Meta argued they should prevail because social media addiction doesn’t exist and the states can’t prove it does. Also, Meta said its statements weren’t knowingly false, as the science of social media addiction is uncertain.

“The AG plaintiffs cite Meta’s own internal documents to support their theory that Meta’s platforms cause addictive use by teens,” Rogers wrote. “Plaintiffs’ experts opine that Meta’s platforms are designed in ways that cause addiction.”

Rogers also decided the states have shown enough evidence to elicit a material dispute of fact about whether Meta’s products were designed to be addictive.

The judge had issues with Meta’s argument that certain statements weren’t linked to business, commerce or trade. It said some state laws require misrepresentations to occur in connection with a consumer transaction. Others must be in the course of business.

“Meta will have the opportunity at trial to make their case that statements were not sufficiently directed at consumers or otherwise not made in the course of commerce,” Rogers wrote. “Sufficient for purposes of this motion, Meta knows that information provided on public earnings are widely reported to consumers.”

The states asked for cross-motions on summary judgment on a handful of the claims, including the commerce statements. Rogers denied them, writing in that example that the states failed to properly identify the statements in question.

Pivoting to Meta’s claims of unfairness, the judge denied them as well.

The judge found a triable issue exists about whether the platforms’ design harms teens by causing compulsive use.

“For example, Meta’s own documents support plaintiff’s theory that time restriction tools were merely a ‘public relations stunt’ employed because defendant knew that more time spent on social media was linked with negative outcomes for teens,” Rogers wrote.

Concerning COPPA, Meta said it only applies to websites directed to children or operators who know its users are under 13 years old — neither of which applied to it.

The states’ cross-motion sought summary judgment, as Meta knew it had users younger than 13 and hadn’t complied with COPPA’s parental consent requirements.

As with many other arguments, Rogers determined a factual dispute existed and that children, at least partially, could be the targets of social media platforms.

“As our lawsuit alleges, Meta is prioritizing profits over the safety of children and violating consumer protection laws left and right,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “We have secured a critical win that blocks Meta’s attempt to toss out our case and helps pave the way to hold the tech giant accountable in California for its role in fueling the mental health crisis of American children.”

An attorney for Meta directed comment to its client, which couldn’t immediately be reached.

During a landmark trial in Los Angeles earlier this year, jurors hit Meta and Google with a $6 million verdict over the mental health damage social media caused one woman, known in court only as Kaley GM.