Meta Platforms Face Sweeping Multi-State Legal Action Over Child Safety Violations

Case Number: 4:23-cv-05448

Plaintiffs:

State Of Arizona,

The People Of The State Of California;

State Of Colorado,;

State Of Connecticut;

State Of Delaware;

State Of Georgia, Attorney General Of The State Of Georgia;

State Of Hawai‘i, Ex Rel. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General;

State Of Idaho, Through Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador;

The People Of The State Of Illinois; State Of Indiana;

State Of Kansas, Ex Rel. Kris W. Kobach, Attorney General;

The Commonwealth Of Kentucky;

State Of Louisiana;

State Of Maine; Office Of The Attorney General Of Maryland;

State Of Michigan Ex Rel. Dana Nessel, Attorney General;

State Of Minnesota, By Its Attorney General, Keith Ellison;

State Of Missouri, Ex Rel. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General;

State Of Nebraska Ex Rel. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General;

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General For The State Of New Jersey, And Cari Fais, Acting Director Of The New Jersey Division Of Consumer Affairs;

The People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York; State Of North Carolina, Ex Rel. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General;

State Of North Dakota, Ex Rel. Drew Wrigley, Attorney General;

State Of Ohio, Ex Rel. Attorney General Dave Yost;

State Of Oregon Ex Rel. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General For The State Of Oregon;

Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania By Attorney General Michelle A. Henry;

State Of Rhode Island;

State Of South Carolina, Ex. Rel. Alan M. Wilson, In His Official Capacity As Attorney General Of The State Of South Carolina;

State Of South Dakota Ex Rel. Marty J. Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General;

Commonwealth Of Virginia, Ex Rel. Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General;

State Of Washington, Ex Rel. Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General;

State Of West Virginia, Ex Rel. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General; And State Of Wisconsin,

Defendant: Meta Platforms

Filing Date: October 24, 2023

Judge: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Location: In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE

II. PUBLIC INTEREST

III. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT

A. Jurisdiction

B. Venue

C. Divisional Assignment.

IV. RELEVANT TIMES

V. PLAINTIFFS

VI. DEFENDANTS

VII. TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE FILING STATES

VIII. META’S SCHEME TO EXPLOIT YOUNG USERS FOR PROFIT

A. To maximize profit, Meta’s business model focuses on increasing young users’ engagement.

1. Meta monetizes young users’ attention through data harvesting and targeted advertising.

2. Meta specifically targets young users.

3. Meta designs and deploys features to capture young users’ attention and prolong their time on its Social Media Platforms.

B. Meta falsely represents that its Social Media Platform features are safe and not designed to induce young users’ compulsive and extended use.

1. Meta represents to the public that its Social Media Platforms are designed to support young users’ well-being.

2. Meta prioritizes maximizing engagement over young users’ safety.

3. Meta’s Recommendation Algorithms encourage compulsive use, which Meta does not disclose.

4. The Recommendation Algorithms are harmful to young users’ mental health, notwithstanding Meta’s representations to the contrary.

5. Meta’s use of social comparison features such as “Likes” also promotes compulsive use and mental health harms for young users.

6. Meta’s use of disruptive audiovisual and haptic notifications interferes with young users’ education and sleep.

7. Meta promotes Platform features such as visual filters known to promote eating disorders and body dysmorphia in youth

8. Meta offers features that it claims promote connection between friends, but actually serve to increase young users’ time spent on the Platform.

9. Through its Platform features, Meta discourages young users’ attempts to disengage, notwithstanding Meta’s representations to the contrary

10. Meta knows its Platform features are addictive and harmful, but misrepresents and omits this information in public discourse.

11. Meta makes its Platforms and associated harmful features available to especially young and vulnerable users.

C. Meta has misled its users and the public by boasting a low prevalence of harmful content on its Social Media Platforms (Redacted)

D. Meta’s Platform features cause young users significant physical and mental harm, of which Meta is keenly aware.

IX. META’S COPPA NONCOMPLIANCE

A. COPPA requires Meta to obtain verifiable parental consent for Instagram and Facebook users under the age of 13

B. Meta does not comply with COPPA with respect to Instagram.

1. Meta possesses actual knowledge of children on Instagram and collects their personal information without obtaining parental consent.

2. Instagram is “directed to children.”

   a. Instagram’s audience composition includes millions of users under the age of 13

   b. Advertising that promotes Instagram and appears on Instagram is directed to children

   c. Meta’s design of the Instagram registration process allows children under 13 to use Instagram.

   d. Users under age 13 are an “intended audience” of Instagram.

   e. Subject matter, characters, activities, music, and other content on Instagram are child-oriented.

   f. Models and celebrities on Instagram are children and/or child-oriented.

3. Meta does not obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from users under the age of 13 on Instagram.

C. Meta does not comply with COPPA with respect to Facebook.

1. Meta has actual knowledge of users under age 13 on Facebook.

2. Facebook is “directed to children.”

3. Meta does not obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from users under age 13 on Facebook.

X. META CONTINUES TO EXPAND AND INTRODUCE NEW PLATFORMS

XI. SUMMARY OF META’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS AND PRACTICES

A. Deceptive Acts and Practices

B. Unfair and/or Unconscionable Acts and Practices

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

• COUNT I: COPPA VIOLATIONS BY META
• COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 44-1521 to -1534
• COUNT III: FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY META IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17500 (BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
• COUNT IV: UNFAIR COMPETITION BY META IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
• COUNT V: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(e)
• COUNT VI: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(g)
• COUNT VII: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(u)
• COUNT VIII: DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(rrr)
• COUNT IX: VIOLATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES § 42-110b et seq.
• COUNT X: VIOLATIONS OF THE DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (Delaware CFA), 6 Del. Code Ann. § 2513 et seq
• COUNT XI: VIOLATIONS OF THE DELAWARE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Delaware DTPA), 6 Del. Code Ann. § 2531 et seq.
• COUNT XII: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq
• COUNT XIII: UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.
• COUNT XIV: UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE HAWAI‘I UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS OR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, HAW. REV. STAT. CHAPTER 480
• COUNT XV: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.
• COUNT XVI: UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.
• COUNT XVII: CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF THE ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT BY META, IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.
• COUNT XVIII: UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT, IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-3(a), -3(b)(1), AND -3(b)(2)
• COUNT XIX: KNOWING VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT AND INCURABLE DECEPTIVE ACTS, IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.
• COUNT XX: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, K.S.A. § 50-626
• COUNT XXI: UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, K.S.A. §50-627
• COUNT XXII: VIOLATIONS OF KENTUCKY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, KY. REV. STAT. CHAPTER § 367 et seq.
• COUNT XXIII: VIOLATIONS OF LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1401 to 1428
• COUNT XXIV: VIOLATIONS OF THE MAINE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 207
• COUNT XXV: VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.901 et seq.
• COUNT XXVI: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES MINN. STAT. § 325D.43 et seq.
• COUNT XXVII: UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS MINN. STAT. § 325D.43 et seq.
• COUNT XXVIII: UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT (MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020)
• COUNT XXIX: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
• COUNT XXX: UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
• COUNT XXXI: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
• COUNT XXXII: UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
• COUNT XXXIII: VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 56:8-1 to 227
• COUNT XXXIV: VIOLATION OF N.Y. GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349
• COUNT XXXV: VIOLATION OF N.Y. GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350
• COUNT XXXVI: REPEATED AND PERSISTENT FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)
• COUNT XXXVII: REPEATED AND PERSISTENT ILLEGALITY IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)
• COUNT XXXVIII: VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5 IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)
• COUNT XXXIX: VIOLATIONS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 (BY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
• COUNT XL: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF N.D. CENT. CODE §51-15-02 (BY NORTH DAKOTA)
• COUNT XLI: UNLAWFUL ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF N.D. CENT. CODE §51-15-02 (BY NORTH DAKOTA)
• COUNT XLII: VIOLATIONS OF OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT – UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES - OHIO REVISED CODE § 1345.02
• COUNT XLIII: VIOLATIONS OF OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT – UNCONSCIONABLE CONSUMER SALES ACTS OR PRACTICES - OHIO REVISED CODE §1345.03
• COUNT XLIV: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES ACT (UTPA), O.R.S. § 646.607(1)
• COUNT XLV: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UTPA, O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(e)
• COUNT XLVI: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UTPA, O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(t)
• COUNT XLVII: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (UTPCPL)
• COUNT XLVIII: UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (UTPCPL)
• COUNT XLIX: VIOLATIONS OF RHODE ISLAND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, R.I. GEN. L. §§ 6-13.1-1 TO 6-13.1-10
• COUNT L: VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, S.C. CODE ANN. SECTION 39-5-10 et seq.
• COUNT LI: VIOLATIONS OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, VA. CODE §§ 59.1-198 TO 59.1-207
• COUNT LII: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, WASH. REV. CODE § 19.86.020
• COUNT LIII: UNFAIR ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, WASH. REV. CODE § 19.86.020
• COUNT LIV: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF WISCONSIN’S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, WIS. STAT. § 100.18(1)
• PRAYER FOR RELIEF