A federal judge has rejected an attempt by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, Google and other social media companies to pull the plug on a lawsuit brought by California and more than 30 other U.S. states, who are seeking to financially punish and collect a potentially massive payday from the social media providers for allegedly intentionally designing their products and platforms to addict young people.
On Oct. 15, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely denied the motion by the social media companies to dismiss the legal action brought by a coalition of 33 U.S. state attorneys general.
In the ruling, the judge declared that a provision of federal law, known as Section 230 of the federal Communications Act, limits some of the claims against Meta and other social media platform operators, including the operators of YouTube, SnapChat and TikTok, particularly concerning how they developed and deployed their online products. But that law doesn't shield the company from the states' claims, the judge said.
Section 230 generally immunizes internet service providers and social media platforms from being held legally liable for content posted online.
But the judge said, in this case, the states have presented enough evidence at this point to show that the social media companies knew or should have known that their products allegedly were addictive, particularly to young users, and were responsible for fueling associated societal harms, and allegedly misled the public concerning the risk, the judge ruled.
And the judge said the companies can't point to larger societal benefits from their products to potentially offset or justify their alleged addictive properties.
"... The States must plead that the alleged consumer injuries were 'not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition,'" the judge wrote. "Given the national outrage, Meta’s arguments here strain credulity.
"The States identify allegations of the known range of serious harms resulting from compulsive use of Instagram and Facebook, and specifically the negative 'net effect' of platform use on young users."
Other states joining the lawsuit included other western states, including Arizona, Washington and Oregon, and other large states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.
The complaint centers on allegations that the popular social media platforms are designed to "entice, engage and ultimately ensnare" teens and children, to "maximize financial gains."
Meta and the other social media companies have "repeatedly misled the public about the substantial dangers of its social media platforms," the complaint says. "It has concealed the ways in which these platforms exploit and manipulate its most vulnerable consumers: teenagers and children. And it has ignored the sweeping damage these platforms have caused to the mental and physical health of our nation's youth."
The states' complaint was very similar to a barrage of other lawsuits filed by trial lawyers throughout the country on behalf of school districts and other entities against Meta and other top social media platforms.
Those lawsuits have been collected in mass proceedings centered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Meta is headquartered.
The lawsuits all level similar accusations against Meta, as well as other social media titans, including Google; Snap Inc., operator of the SnapChat app; and ByteDance, operator of TikTok.
The lawsuits all accuse the social media companies of creating public nuisances by essentially addicting students to a constant barrage of games, videos, photos and more.
They assert this has harmed students and schools alike, creating a mental and behavioral health crisis among American children and teens, encouraging young people to engage in potentially harmful behaviors, while increasing dysfunction, anxiety, depression and other psychological and emotional disorders and maladies.
The state coalition centered its case on claiming Meta's actions amount to violations of state consumer fraud and deceptive practices laws, as well as violations of a federal law, known as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires social media companies to ensure no one under age 13 is using their sites without verified parental consent.
The complaint asserts Meta knows children are improperly using their platforms, and is allegedly well aware of the "harmful effects" of its products. But the company allegedly "has persisted in developing and deploying features that exploit young users’ psychological vulnerabilities and significantly harm young users in its pursuit of profit."
The state coalition is seeking an array of potential damages, including civil penalties and other payments from Meta. Each state's damages claim differs slightly, based on each state's different laws.
Potentially billions of dollars worth of civil penalties and other damages could be at stake in the states' case, in addition to untold damages that could result from the other consolidated private claims against the social media operators.
In her ruling, the judge noted her "skepticism" at some of plaintiffs' "novel theories" in support of their claims against Meta and other social media companies. But she said the states' lawsuit is part of a still developing "area of law in some flux," as courts in various jurisdictions grapple with how to apply consumer protection and fraud laws to social media products.
"Thus... the court declines to foreclose the States' (and personal injury plaintiffs') failure-to-warn theories as to known risks of addiction attendant to any platform features or platform construction in general as barred by Section 230. The Court's skepticism of these claims is noted, but for now, the claims proceed."
In response to the ruling, Attorney General Bonta released a statement hailing the decision.
He said: “Meta needs to be held accountable for the very real harm it has inflicted on children here in California and across the country. Along with legislation providing for market-wide changes, this litigation will help determine how social media companies can be held accountable and how these companies can treat our children for decades to come. I have an immense amount of hope for the future.
"As the home to the greatest innovators in the world and a robust technology sector, California has a particular opportunity and obligation to be a catalyst for change. Meta can and must do better. Our children deserve their childhoods back.”
A spokesperson for Meta provided a statement to Reuters following the ruling, saying the company disagreed with the judge and had rolled out new features and protections "to support parents and teens."
A spokesperson for Google, which operates YouTube, told Reuters the company believes the allegations in the lawsuits are "simply not true." The company said it also was committed to making its online products a "safer, healthier experience."