By Zoey
A federal judge has ruled that a major lawsuit brought by 29 U.S. state attorneys general against Meta Platforms can continue, rejecting the company’s effort to have key claims dismissed in a legal battle centered on allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children and teenagers hooked on the platforms.
The decision marks another significant setback for Meta as it faces increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny over the impact of its social media services on young users.
In a ruling issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Meta’s request to dismiss several of the states’ claims, including allegations of deceptive business practices, unfair conduct, and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The judge also granted summary judgment in favor of the states on part of the privacy law dispute, finding that Meta failed to comply with certain legal requirements related to providing notice and obtaining parental consent under COPPA. That portion of the case will not require a jury trial because the court determined the states had established the violation as a matter of law.
Meta did not immediately issue a public response following the ruling.
The lawsuit is one of the largest legal challenges the company has faced over the effects of its social media platforms on children and teenagers. The coalition of state attorneys general alleges that Meta knowingly developed features within Facebook and Instagram that encourage compulsive use among young people while concealing internal knowledge about the potential psychological and emotional harm associated with excessive engagement.
According to the states, the company’s products have contributed to serious mental health concerns among children and adolescents, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, academic difficulties, and disruption of everyday life.
The lawsuit also alleges that excessive social media use has been linked to self-harm and suicide among some young users, and claims Meta failed to adequately warn families about these risks.
The attorneys general argue that Meta publicly portrayed its platforms as safe while internally understanding that many of the products’ design features encouraged prolonged and repetitive use, particularly among younger audiences.
Meta has strongly denied the allegations.
The company argued that the states failed to provide evidence proving it intentionally misled consumers regarding the nature of Facebook and Instagram. Meta also maintained that there is no universally recognized psychiatric diagnosis known as “social media addiction,” contending that statements denying its platforms are addictive could not be considered false or deceptive.
Meta further argued that Facebook and Instagram are designed for a general audience rather than specifically targeting children under the age of 13. On that basis, the company asserted that it had not violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, however, concluded that several key factual disputes remain unresolved and should ultimately be decided by a jury.
In her 38-page opinion, the judge said there are genuine questions regarding whether Meta intentionally designed its platforms in ways that encourage compulsive use, whether company statements denying such practices were misleading, and whether aspects of Facebook and Instagram were at least partially directed toward children.
The ruling stated that the attorneys general had presented a reasonable interpretation of Meta’s public statements suggesting that Facebook and Instagram were not designed to encourage unhealthy or compulsive behavior among teenagers.
The judge wrote that if the evidence presented by the states ultimately demonstrates the platforms were intentionally designed to increase compulsive engagement at the expense of young users’ well-being, a jury could reasonably conclude that Meta’s public statements were false or misleading.
The lawsuit now moves into the next phase of litigation, where both sides will continue presenting evidence before the claims are ultimately considered by a jury unless a settlement is reached.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers is also overseeing a broader multidistrict litigation involving more than 2,600 plaintiffs, including individuals, school districts, and local governments. Those cases similarly accuse major social media companies of creating addictive online platforms that have harmed children and adolescents.
The broader litigation includes claims against Meta as well as other technology companies operating popular social media platforms, reflecting growing legal pressure on the industry over concerns about youth mental health, online safety, privacy protections, and the long-term effects of social media use.
The latest ruling does not determine whether Meta is ultimately liable for the allegations. Instead, it allows the states to continue pursuing many of their claims while confirming that important factual questions surrounding the design of Facebook and Instagram, the company’s public representations, and its obligations under federal children’s privacy laws should be resolved through further court proceedings.
Original article
Comments