Meta Faces Multiple Violations in Minnesota's Unfair Practices Claim

COUNT XXVII: UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS MINN. STAT. § 325D.43 et seq.

1015. 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.

1016. Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1(13) prohibits any person from engaging in “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or unconscionable acts or practices.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(13).[41]

1017. “[A]n unfair method of competition or an unfair or unconscionable act or practice is any method of competition, act, or practice that: (1) offends public policy as established by the statutes, rules, or common law of Minnesota; (2) is unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or (3) is substantially injurious to consumers.”[42]

1018. In numerous instances in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, Meta violated Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1(13) by engaging in unfair or unconscionable acts, practices, and omissions that were unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to consumers. Those acts, practices, and omissions include, but are not limited to:

a. Meta’s targeting its Social Media Platforms to young users while knowingly designing its Social Media Platforms to include features that Meta knew to be psychologically and physically harmful to young users—including features known to promote compulsive, prolonged, and unhealthy use by young users;

b. Meta utilizing Social Media Platform features that unfairly and/or unconscionably harm young users independent of any actions taken by third-party users of Meta’s Platforms. These features include infinite scroll, ephemeral content features, autoplay, quantification and display of “Likes,” and disruptive alerts, all of which were unfairly and/or unconscionably utilized by Meta to extract additional time and attention from young users whose developing brains were not equipped to resist those manipulative tactics;

c. Meta designing, developing, and deploying disruptive audiovisual and vibration notifications and alerts and ephemeral content features in a way that unfairly and/or unconscionably exploited young users’ psychological vulnerabilities and cultivated a sense of “fear of missing out” in order to induce young users to spend more time than they would otherwise choose on Meta’s Social Media Platforms;

d. Meta algorithmically serving content to young users, according to “variable reinforcement schedules,” thereby manipulating dopamine releases in its young users, unfairly or unconscionably inducing them to engage repeatedly with its products— much like a gambler at a slot machine; and

e. Meta’s deployment of manipulative and harmful features, both on its own and in combination, for use by young users.

1019. These acts, practices, and omissions caused young users’ compulsive and unhealthy use of and addiction to Meta’s Social Media Platforms. At all relevant times, Meta had a thorough understanding of the mental and physical harms and addiction suffered by young users of its Platforms. Instead of taking adequate measures to mitigate these damaging effects, Meta turned a blind eye to them, and persisted in exploiting young users’ psychological vulnerabilities. Meta’s acts, practices, and omissions alleged herein are unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, including because they constitute knowing decisions causing unnecessary and unjustified harm to young users for Meta’s financial gain.

1020. Meta’s acts, practices, and omissions alleged herein also have caused and continue to cause substantial injury to consumers that could not be reasonably avoided. Young users could not have reasonably avoided injuries resulting from Meta’s acts, practices, and omissions, including because Meta misrepresented and failed to disclose the dangerous nature of its Social Media Platforms and because Meta utilized psychologically manipulative engagement-inducing features, knowing that young users are especially susceptible to those psychologically manipulative tactics.

1021. Due to Meta’s unfair and unconscionable acts, practices, and omissions described in this Complaint, consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injury. 1022. Meta’s unfair and unconscionable acts, practices, and omissions described in this Complaint constitute multiple separate violations of Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1(13).

[41] 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, sect. 6 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(13)), took effect on August 1, 2023. Therefore, the relevant time for the State of Minnesota’s claim under Count XXVII pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subdivision 1(13) began on August 1, 2023, and continues through the present.

[42] 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, sect. 17 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 8); see 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, sect. 7 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 2(b)).