A lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc. of knowingly designing its social media platforms to addict and harm children’s mental and physical health survived the company’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Neal Kravitz on Monday shot down Meta’s argument that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability for the claims, instead siding with other recent court decisions where judges have found that statute prevents liability only for third-party content, not design features.
“Section 230 provides no refuge to Meta because none of the omissions-based deceptive trade practice claims seeks to treat Meta as a publisher of any particular third-party content,” Kravitz wrote for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
“Meta puts profits over kids’ health & safety,” Washington, D.C., Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a post on X. “I look forward to holding them accountable in court.”
Meta didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Meta’s practices violated D.C. consumer protection laws, including by using deceptive trade practices to misrepresent the platforms safety, according to the complaint filed Oct. 24, 2023. Addictive features like personalized algorithms and “infinite scroll” addict young users in order for Meta to profit at the expense of their health. The complaint cited in-house Meta studies leaked by a whistleblower that showed Meta was aware of the mental health impact it had on teenagers, including promoting eating disorders.
The decision is the latest front in the tech industry’s battle to use Section 230 as a shield for its design features. Kravitz cited a July opinion in NetChoice v. Reyes refusing the tech industry group’s claims that Section 230 made Utah’s social media verification law unlawful, writing that it didn’t implicate user-generated speech, just design features. Meta also lost bid to dismiss New Mexico’s complaint accusing the company of facilitating child exploitation.
The case is District of Columbia vs. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.,, D.C. Super. Ct., No. 2023-CAB-006550, motion to dismiss denied 9/9/24
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.