Meta social media addiction lawsuits cleared for August bellwether trial

Meta lawsuit overview:

• Who: A coalition of 29 state attorneys general will proceed to trial against Meta Platforms Inc.
• Why: The states claim Meta intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to young users and violated consumer protection and children’s privacy laws.
• Where: The Meta lawsuit is pending in California federal court.
• How to get help: If you or your child used social media between the ages of 5 and 17 and later experienced mental health problems, you may qualify to join a social media addiction lawsuit investigation.

A federal judge has ruled that an August bellwether trial will proceed in litigation alleging Meta Platforms designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to young users.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely denied competing motions for summary judgment, finding that key factual disputes must be decided at trial rather than by the court.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general, including California, New Jersey, Kentucky and Colorado. The states allege Meta intentionally designed features on its social media platforms to maximize youth engagement while concealing the risks associated with compulsive use.

According to the court’s order, the states assert Meta violated state consumer protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

In a plea for summary judgement, Meta asked the court to dismiss the claims arguing, among other things, that “social media addiction” is not a recognized medical condition. 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected the request, writing that more recent research and statements from the American Psychiatric Association create a factual dispute regarding the existence and characteristics of social media addiction that must be resolved at trial.

In the same motion, the court also rejected Meta’s request for summary judgment on claims alleging Facebook and Instagram contain defective product designs. The judge found the states presented sufficient documents and expert opinions to create a triable issue regarding whether the platforms’ design causes compulsive use among teenagers.

Court leaves key claims for jury to decide in Meta lawsuit

The judge ruled that factual disputes remain regarding whether Meta engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct and whether the company designed its platforms in ways that harmed young users.

The states allege Meta incorporated features, such as infinite scroll, autoplay, notifications and other engagement-focused tools, that encouraged excessive use by minors.

The court granted partial summary judgment on one limited COPPA issue, finding there is no factual dispute that Meta did not comply with the statute’s notice and parental consent requirements. 

However, the court concluded factual disputes remain regarding whether COPPA applies to Meta, leaving that liability question for trial.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers also criticized the parties’ sealing requests, particularly Meta’s efforts to keep documents confidential. In a prior hearing, she described the volume of sealing requests as “ridiculous” and denied requests to seal documents based solely on confidentiality or proprietary business information.

The August advisory jury trial will serve as the first bellwether case involving the states’ claims in the consolidated multidistrict litigation. Separate lawsuits brought by individuals, school districts and other plaintiffs remain pending as part of the broader multidistrict litigation.

Earlier this year, a California jury found Meta and Google liable for the mental health harms suffered by plaintiff Kaley G.M., who allegedly became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.

What do you think about the claims against Meta in this social media addiction litigation? Let us know in the comments.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The social media addiction multidistrict litigation is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR and MDL No. 22-md-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Power Plate Meals recalls frozen meatloaf due to allergen mislabeling
• Merrick Bank class action alleges unlawful debt collection despite attorney representation
• Washington Post class action alleges customer data used to set subscription prices
• Audi hit with class action over alleged subframe defect in Q5, SQ5 vehicles