In a significant legal development, a federal judge has denied a substantial portion of Meta’s motion to dismiss claims made by 34 states, which accuse the company of designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive, particularly to younger users. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers indicated that the case, centered around the allegations of harm caused to children, public health, and local governments, will proceed despite Meta’s arguments for dismissal. The claims brought forth include violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which mandates parental consent for the collection of data from children under 13. This ruling marks a critical moment in the ongoing discussion about the responsibilities of social media platforms regarding underage users.
Meta contended that its platforms were not targeted at children, an assertion rejected by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. The judge emphasized that the nature of third-party content on Facebook and Instagram plays a crucial role in determining whether the platforms serve young audiences. The ruling highlights the court’s willingness to consider the impacts of harmful design features and indicates that certain aspects of Meta’s operations can be seen as promoting unfair practices. Nevertheless, Judge Gonzalez Rogers recognized the limitations imposed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grants online businesses immunity from liability for content created by users, thereby complicating some elements of the lawsuit.
The states have pointed to features on Facebook and Instagram that appear engineered to engage children, including infinite scrolling, autoplay video, ephemeral content, disruptive notifications, and the public display of “likes.” These features are largely protected under Section 230, according to the judge. However, other functionalities that involve user interaction, such as appearance-altering filters, time restriction tools, and the ability to manage multiple accounts, fall outside the protections offered by the act. This distinction demonstrates the nuanced legal landscape surrounding the accountability of tech companies for specific design choices made to engage users.
Further complicating the case is the judge’s ruling on the states’ failure to warn claims, which she allowed to proceed. These claims suggest that internal practices and misleading information about the potential harms of using these platforms form a pattern that constitutes an unfair trade act. This aspect of the judge’s ruling opens the door to examining Meta’s transparency and ethical responsibility in informing users and their guardians about the potential negative effects of excessive use of their platforms, showing an interest in the broader implications of such practices on user welfare.
In light of the ongoing lawsuit, a spokesperson from Meta expressed the company’s intent to prioritize the mental health and safety of younger users. They pointed to various measures being implemented, including new Teen Accounts that introduce automatic limits on contact and content for minors. This announcement reflects Meta’s recognition of the criticism and concerns highlighted in the lawsuit while also aiming to position the company as a responsible entity willing to adapt to feedback regarding children’s safety online.
This ruling forms part of a larger multi-district legal proceeding that consolidates numerous lawsuits from various stakeholders—children and adolescents, local governments, and school districts—against major social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat. The overarching claim is that these platforms perpetuate addictive behaviors among minors. The outcome of the ruling and further developments in the case may significantly impact how social media giants approach youth engagement and inform policy discussions surrounding online safety for children in the future, leading to potential regulatory changes and shifting corporate responsibilities in the digital landscape.
