Meta's Zuckerberg Not Liable in Lawsuits over Social Media Harm to Children

Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacts as he testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the US Capitol in Washington, US, January 31, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacts as he testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the US Capitol in Washington, US, January 31, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
TT

Meta's Zuckerberg Not Liable in Lawsuits over Social Media Harm to Children

Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacts as he testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the US Capitol in Washington, US, January 31, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacts as he testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the US Capitol in Washington, US, January 31, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

A federal judge said Meta Platforms (META.O), CEO Mark Zuckerberg is not personally liable in 25 lawsuits accusing his company of addicting children to social media.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California rejected accusations on Thursday that Zuckerberg directed Meta's efforts to conceal from children the serious mental health risks of using Facebook and Instagram, Reuters reported.

The plaintiffs called Meta's billionaire co-founder the "guiding spirit" behind alleged concealment efforts, saying he ignored repeated internal warnings about the risks and publicly downplayed them.

But the judge found a lack of specifics about what Zuckerberg did wrong, and said "control of corporate activity alone is insufficient" to establish liability. Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself.

The plaintiffs brought claims under the laws of 13 US states: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Previn Warren, a partner at Motley Rice representing the plaintiffs, said on Friday his clients will continue gathering evidence "to uncover the truth about how Big Tech has knowingly prioritized profits over the safety of our children."

The 25 lawsuits are among several hundred by children, their families and school districts seeking damages from Meta, Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), Google, ByteDance's TikTok and Snap's (SNAP.N), Snapchat over social media addiction.

Dozens of US state attorneys general are pursuing similar cases against Meta, linking its social media platforms to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interference with education and daily life.

The case is In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-md-03047.



US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
TT

US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)

The US Supreme Court sidestepped on Friday a decision on whether to allow shareholders to proceed with a securities fraud lawsuit accusing Meta's Facebook of misleading investors about the misuse of the social media platform's user data.
The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 6, dismissed Facebook's appeal of a lower court's ruling that had allowed a 2018 class action led by Amalgamated Bank to proceed. The Supreme Court opted not resolve the underlying legal dispute, determining that the case should not have been taken up. Its action leaves the lower court's decision in place, Reuters reported. 
The court's dismissal came in a one-line order that provided no explanation. The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. The other one, involving the artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, was argued on Nov. 13. The Supreme Court has not ruled yet in the Nvidia case.
The plaintiffs in the Facebook case claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users. They accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks. Facebook's stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump's successful US presidential campaign in 2016. The investors have sought unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Facebook stock they held.
At issue was whether Facebook broke the law when it failed to detail the prior data breach in subsequent business-risk disclosures, and instead portrayed the risk of such incidents as purely hypothetical.
Facebook argued that it was not required to reveal that its warned-of risk had already materialized because "a reasonable investor" would understand risk disclosures to be forward-looking statements. President Joe Biden's administration supported the shareholders in the case.
US District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals revived it.
The Cambridge Analytica data breach prompted US government investigations into Facebook's privacy practices, various lawsuits and a US congressional hearing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million. Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the US Federal Trade Commission over the issue.
The Supreme Court in prior rulings has limited the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that polices securities fraud.