Meta tries to defeat AGs' claims ahead of children's addiction trial

(CN) — Meta Platforms Inc. on Wednesday tried to persuade a federal judge there was no evidence to support the claims by 33 state attorneys general that the owner of Facebook and Instagram has knowingly misled consumers that the social media platforms aren’t addictive.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland didn’t issue a ruling on Meta’s bid for summary judgment that would prevent the social media behemoth from having to go on trial to fight the states’ accusations it designed Instagram and Facebook to make them addictive to children and teens.

However, the judge, a Barack Obama appointee, didn’t appear to be persuaded by Meta’s attorneys that the states’ claims could be resolved as a matter of law and there were no factual disputes that would need to be decided either by her or by a jury at trial.

One of the fundamental problems the judge said she was concerned with is she didn’t know what the specific statements are by Meta that the AGs claim were false or misleading. Gonzalez Rogers, who is also overseeing the massive multi-district litigation against several social media companies by individuals, school districts and local governments, noted she hadn’t been provided with the roughly 130 purported misrepresentations.

“I want a document that lists all the statements that you’re moving forward on,” the judge told the lawyers for the various states. “There’s no way I can do an analysis of some these issues without actually knowing what it is that you’re moving forward on.”

Much of the discussion at the three-hour hearing focused on the extent to which the statements made by Meta and its executives, including at congressional hearings and in internal communications, supported the states’ accusation Meta sought to mislead consumers about the addictive nature of its products.

James Rouhandeh, one of Meta’s lawyers, argued the company was entitled to summary judgment on the states’ claims its executives made intentionally or knowingly false statements about whether Facebook and Instagram are addictive because, at least at the time these statements were made several years ago, social media addiction wasn’t a recognized medical or psychiatric condition.

Megan O’Neill, an attorney with the California Department of Justice, disputed the extent to which various states’ consumer protection laws require a statement to be knowingly false for it to be considered deceptive.

With respect to Colorado’s consumer protection law, the judge observed the statute defines a false statement as a statement that has the capacity to deceive even if it does not.

“That doesn’t support what your saying,” she told Meta’s attorney. “A false statement is not necessarily an actual statement that is false or true. The question is whether it has the capacity to deceive — that is what the law says.”

The judge agreed to Meta’s request to withdraw its demand for a jury trial. However, she said if she were to proceed with a bench trial, she likely would seat an advisory jury to hear the evidence and give its decision.

The trial is scheduled for Aug. 5, after the first bellwhether trial in the multi-district litigation.

Last month, a California state court jury awarded $6 million in damages to a woman who took Meta and YouTube trial over claims she became addicted as a child to their social media and streaming platforms.

Follow @edpettersson