A federal judge refused to let Meta avoid trial on key claims in a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general alleging it designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children while allegedly withholding information about harms to minors from the public.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Monday denied Meta’s bid for summary judgment on key claims based on deception, unfair practices and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
The judge also found that the tech giant failed to comply with that law’s notice and parental consent requirements. Rogers granted summary judgment to the states on that issue.
Rogers determined there were material factual disputes over whether Meta’s social media platforms are addictive, whether the company falsely denied allegations that it designed them that way and whether it “partially” marketed the platforms towards children. The ruling does not decide whether Facebook or Instagram are addictive or caused the alleged harms; it means those issues may be considered by a jury.
GOOGLE’S YOUTUBE REACHES SETTLEMENT IN LAWSUIT ALLEGING CHILD SOCIAL MEDIA ADDICTION
“The AGs present a reasonable interpretation of [Meta’s] statements that Facebook and Instagram are not designed in ways that cause teens to compulsively use the platforms to their detriment,” Rogers wrote.
“To the extent plaintiffs’ evidence shows that the platforms are in fact designed to do just that, a jury could reasonably find the statements were untrue to a reasonable person,” the judge added.
Meta said that it disagrees with the judge’s ruling.
“We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement to Fox Business.
“For over a decade, we’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most. We’re proud of the progress we’ve made, and we’re always working to do better,” the spokesperson continued.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta hailed the judge’s decision as a “critical win” in holding Meta accountable for contributing to a mental health crisis among children.
“Now we’ll continue our case and keep fighting to protect our kids online,” New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote on social media.
The states said research has shown that children’s use of Facebook and Instagram could lead to depression, anxiety, insomnia, interference with education and daily life and self-harm such as suicide.
Meta had argued that the attorneys general lacked evidence showing it misled the public about its platforms’ alleged addictiveness, claiming that this was because social media addiction is not an established psychiatric condition, meaning claims that its platforms are not addictive could not be false.
META LOBBIES CONGRESS FOR IMMUNITY FROM LAWSUITS ALLEGING ONLINE HARM TO CHILDREN
The company also pushed back on accusations that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act because it marketed Facebook and Instagram to a wider audience and was not only directed at children under 13.
The court sided with Meta on some fronts, including recognizing that the company’s approach of suspending accounts that may belong to users under 13 does not confirm they are underage. The Meta spokesperson said the company intentionally errs on the side of caution regarding accounts suspected of belonging to someone under 13, adding that many may not end up being underage after all.
Rogers also oversees similar multidistrict litigation brought by more than 2,600 people, school districts and local governments accusing social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok of addicting children.
A trial on claims brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey against Meta is scheduled for August 18.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Read the full article here