Trouble for Meta in Minnesota as Attorney General Sues for Deceptive Trade Practices

COUNT XXVI: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES MINN. STAT. § 325D.43 et seq.

1008. The State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 850 above as though fully alleged in this cause of action.

1009. Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1 provides in part:

A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person:

(5) represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have;

(7) represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; and

(14) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.[40]

1010. Meta and each Defendant are “persons” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44.

1011. Meta’s Social Media Platforms are a “good” or “service” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44.

1012. In numerous instances in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, Meta violated Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1(5), 1(7), and 1(14) by representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have, representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another, and engaging in deceptive acts, practices, and omissions that caused a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding among Minnesota consumers in connection with its advertising, marketing, promotion, and other representations regarding its goods or services. Those acts, practices, and omissions include, but are not limited to:

a. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Meta’s Social Media Platforms are not psychologically or physically harmful for young users and are not designed to induce young users’ compulsive and extended use, when they are in fact so designed;

b. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Meta’s Social Media Platforms are less addictive and/or less likely to result in psychological and physical harm for young users than its Social Media Platforms are in reality;

c. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, through the publication of CSER reports [Redacted], and through other communications, that the incidence or prevalence of negative or harmful user experiences on Meta’s Social Media Platforms was lower than it actually was;

d. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Meta prioritized young users’ health and safety over maximizing profits, when in fact Meta subordinated young user health and safety to its goal of maximizing profits by prolonging young users’ time spent on its Social Media Platforms;

e. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Meta prevents under-13 from using Instagram and/or Facebook when in fact Meta was aware that it does not prevent under-13 users from using Instagram and Facebook;

f. Misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Meta’s collection of user data was not for the purpose of causing those users to become addicted to the Social Media Platforms, when in reality that was one of the purposes for which Meta collected user data; and

g. Making other false and deceptive representations set forth in this Complaint.

1013. Due to Meta’s deceptive acts, practices, and omissions described in this Complaint, consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injury.

1014. Meta’s acts, practices, and omissions described in this Complaint constitute multiple separate violations of Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1.

[40] Pursuant to 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, section 6, Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(13) is to be re-codified as Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(14). For simplicity, the State of Minnesota refers to this provision as Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(14), though this provision has been in effect for the full relevant time period and continues through the present.