Meta Platforms Inc. is facing a lawsuit from dozens of state attorneys general that alleges the corporate knowingly contributed to a youth mental health crisis by getting kids enthusiastic about social media.
A federal judge in California sided with 34 state attorneys general on Tuesday and allowed a number of the claims against Meta's Facebook and Instagram platforms to proceed in a sprawling legal battle over the harmful effects of social media.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who issued the ruling, is overseeing a whole bunch of lawsuits alleging that a handful of social media corporations – including Google's YouTube, ByteDance's TikTok and Snap, in addition to Meta – make the most of young people's addiction to Social media have benefited products. Tuesday's ruling only concerns the allegations made by the Attorney General's Office against Meta.
Attorneys general have maintained that Meta is not going to remove the platforms' harmful features, despite research showing that use of Facebook and Instagram is linked to depression and other mental health problems. They also claimed that Meta unlawfully collected data from children under 13 years old. In October, TikTok was sued over similar claims in 13 state courts and in Washington, DC. The states accused the corporate of deceiving users about its child safety tools and using malicious features to maintain children on the platform longer to maximise profits. A TikTok spokesperson called the claims “inaccurate and misleading.”
A Meta spokesman said the corporate disagreed with the general decision, even though it welcomed the dismissal of some claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a long-standing federal law that protects web corporations from lawsuits.
“We've built numerous tools to support parents and teens, and recently announced that we're significantly transforming the Instagram experience for tens of millions of teens with new teen accounts. “This is a protected experience for teens that automatically limits who can contact them based on the content they see,” the spokesperson said in an email. “We believe the evidence will demonstrate our commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta shares fell about 1% to $581.77 after the ruling before rising to $586.27 on the close in New York.
Rogers said “Meta's alleged years-long public deception campaign about the risks” of social media addiction and mental health harm to children was a possible violation of state and federal laws against deceptive and unfair business practices. But she said Section 230 “provides a fairly significant limitation on these claims.”
The judge also ruled on individual personal injury lawsuits brought against the foremost social media platforms on behalf of a whole bunch of youngsters, teens and young adults. It concluded that some claims could also be made based on violations of consumer protection laws.
Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, welcomed the choice, saying it confirms that the businesses must “address our allegations that they failed to warn of significant risks to users' safety and mental health, and that they engaged in misleading marketing and business tactics.”
The social media companies are also facing hundreds of lawsuits from public school districts alleging the platforms created a public nuisance. The companies won a ruling in June that dismissed lawsuits filed by some counties in state court in Los Angeles. Rogers has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the cases consolidated in her court.
The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc., 4:23-cv-05448, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).
©2024 Bloomberg LP Visit Bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com