Meta Loses Bid to Dismiss States’ Claims That Facebook, Instagram Addict Children
A federal judge rejected Meta Platforms’ bid to dismiss a lawsuit by 29 U.S. state attorneys general accusing it of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict children and knowingly concealing the harm from the public.
The judge also said Meta did not comply with that law’s notice and parental consent requirements, and granted summary judgment to the states on that issue.
Meta and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.
Gonzalez Rogers also oversees related multidistrict litigation by more than 2,600 individuals, school districts and local governments over whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok addict children.
Meta Downplays Harms
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 including suicide.
Meta countered that the attorneys general had no evidence it misled consumers about its platforms’ alleged addictiveness, including in congressional testimony by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg.
The Menlo Park, California-based company said this was because “social media addiction” is not an established psychiatric condition, and therefore statements that its platforms are not addictive could not be false.
Meta also said it didn’t violate the children’s online privacy law because it directed Facebook and Instagram to a general audience, not just children under age 13.
Judge Finds Factual Disputes About Addictiveness
In a 38-page decision, Gonzalez Rogers found material factual disputes over whether Meta’s social media platforms are addictive, whether Meta falsely denied it designed them that way, and whether it “partially” directed the platforms at children.
“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,” she 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.”
A trial is scheduled for August 18, court records show.