OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — Meta, TikTok and other social media companies are once again attempting to avoid a sweeping class action from parents and school districts, after the companies failed to convince a federal judge to throw out claims that they are liable for the harmful effects their apps have on young users.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is weighing whether to toss amended claims from hundreds of plaintiffs who say that Meta, Google and others knowingly designed their apps to be addictive to children. They are bringing public nuisance and negligence claims, echoing arguments from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general that Meta deliberately made its social media platforms addictive to children and teens and breached its duty to prevent harm.
The defendants dispute the amended claims. They also dispute an accusation from the plaintiffs that Meta head Mark Zuckerberg breached his duty to inform users of his apps’ dangers.
Rogers, an Obama appointee, told a Oakland courtroom Friday that both sides have struggled to explain how the “duty of disclosure” standard differs in various states and might affect claims of negligence.
“Neither side really engages with the distinctions that exist,” the judge said. “You don't help the court by identifying the controlling law of the various states. There are lots of lawyers, [and] we actually need you to help us do this work.”
Michael Weinkowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued on Friday that there is clear relationship between social media users and the defendants.
But “the question remains, is there a duty of disclosure?" he said. "We don't perceive there to be a material difference in the way that states approach that question."
The lawsuit names Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant. As one of the world's most recognizable corporate leaders — and someone knowledgeable about the workings of Meta services like Facebook and Instagram — Zuckerberg may be liable, Weinkowitz said.
But Timothy Hester, representing Meta, said that the plaintiffs failed to establish a special relationship between Meta and app users, arguing: “They can't base that on specialized knowledge alone.”
“If that were true, then any officer of any company would have a duty to make disclosures to the world,” Hester added. He argued the plaintiffs hadn't pleaded sufficient evidence to bring negligence claims — nor had they shown that users would have changed their behavior if they had known how addictive the social media platforms are.
In response, Weinkowitz said that users of these platforms rely on company owners for such warning. He said that the case is about users who are so addicted to social media platforms that even if they had more information, they might not have stopped using them.
Rogers suggested the parties review similar cases about tobacco products, where users understood the dangers of a product but kept using it due to their addiction.
“I have defendants who come in here every week who are ordered not to use meth or fentanyl," she said. "And they’re trying, but it’s hard."
Also of note, the judge said, was the fact that about 70% of children cited in the claims began using social media platforms at age 12.
“Yes, they may be adults now, but they were children when it started,” she said. “None of this is going to be looked at in a vacuum.”
Rogers did not indicate when she may rule. She asked that each side provide cases from each state upon which they believe the claim for negligent misrepresentation either exists or does not exist. The parties return to court March 21 to discuss discovery of evidence.
In November 2023, Rogers dismissed to dismiss some claims brought under the First Amendment and under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. An important part of internet law, Section 230 holds that content platforms generally cannot be held liable for content from third parties.
Nonetheless, Rogers said the defendants know that young users are core to their platforms. She found that Section 230 does not grant immunity from a negligence per se claim.
The lawsuit comes as some states look to hold Meta and other companies responsible for explaining editorial decisions and disclosing their content moderation standards.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a separate case which also concerns whether and how much state governments can regulate social media platforms. Amid new content moderation laws in conservative states, the social media companies warn of a looming existential crisis in how people connect online.
Follow @nhanson_reports
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
