Behind the Metrics: Meta's Safety Claims Challenged in Colorado Consumer Protection Suit

COUNT VI: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(g)

878. Colorado realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 850 as though fully alleged in this cause of action.

879. Through the acts and omissions described above, including but not limited to those set forth in paragraphs 846.a. through 846.g., Meta represented that its Social Media Platforms met a particular standard, quality, and grade of safety appropriate for its young users that Meta knew or should have known they did not meet.

880. For example, as detailed above, Meta made specific representations regarding the safety of its Platforms in its “Community Standards Enforcement Reports,” which described the percentage of content posted that Meta removed for violating its Community Standards. In its Reports and accompanying statements made on its website, to reporters, and to Congress, Meta promoted this “prevalence” metric as a reliable measure of the safety of its Social Media Platforms. Meta represented that because it aggressively enforced its Community Standards— thereby reducing the “prevalence” of Community-Standards-violating content—its Social Media Platforms were safe products for young users, and only rarely exposed young users to harmful content and harmful experiences.

881. But Meta knew or should have known the “prevalence” of content which violated its Community Standards was not the same as the actual “prevalence” of harmful content on its Social Media Platforms. Meta knew or should have known that the prevalence of harmful content—[Redacted]—was significantly higher than the public-facing prevalence metrics Meta reported to consumers. Meta thus knew that its Social Media Platforms did not meet the standard, quality, and/or grade necessary to make it safe for young users, despite its representations to the contrary.

882. The representations alleged herein constitute separate violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. By engaging in the acts and practices alleged herein, both separately and as taken together, Meta violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(g).