Michigan Attorney General Accuses Meta of Willfully Violating the Consumer Protection Act

COUNT XXV: VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.901 et seq.

996. The State of Michigan, by and through Attorney General Dana Nessel, realleges and reaffirms each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

997. The State of Michigan brings this claim under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), asserting claims under § 3(1) of the MCPA, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.903(1), which protects Michigan residents against “[u]nfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.”

998. The Attorney General has provided sufficient notice and is authorized to bring this claim pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905 and 445.911, as well as her parens patriae authority.

999. At all relevant times, Meta was engaged in the conduct of trade or commerce as that term is defined at Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.902(1)(g).

1000. The allegations set forth above comprise violations of the following subsections of the MCPA, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1):

(a) Causing a probability of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.

(b) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he or she does not have.

(e) 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.

(s) Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer.

(bb) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material to the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is.

(cc) Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner.

1001. Specifically, Meta violated § 3(1)(a) by knowingly and intentionally causing confusion about its services’ approval through, inter alia, the publication of CSER reports [Redacted], and through other communications, suggesting that the incidence or prevalence of negative or harmful user experiences on Meta’s Social Media Platforms was lower than it actually was.

1002. For the same reason, Meta violated § 3(1)(b) by misrepresenting its goods or services’ characteristics, uses, and benefits by, inter alia, knowingly and intentionally publishing CSER reports [Redacted], and through other communications, suggesting that the incidence or prevalence of negative or harmful user experiences on Meta’s Social Media Platforms was lower than it actually was.

1003. Meta violated § 3(1)(s) by failing to reveal the above-described material facts and other known or suspected realities regarding the negative or harmful user experiences on Meta’s Social Media Platforms, which misled consumers and could not have been reasonably known by them, in part because consumers lack access to Meta’s internal data and metrics.

1004. Meta violated § 3(1)(bb) through representations and statements of fact material to users’ decision to use Meta’s Social Media Platforms by routinely publishing misleading reports boasting a deceptively low incidence of user harms, deceptively representing that targeted features of its platforms are not manipulative or otherwise designed to promote young users’ prolonged and unhealthy engagement with social media, and misrepresenting that its platforms are designed and maintained to ensure safe experiences for young users.

1005. Meta violated § 3(1)(cc) by making representations of fact in a positive manner, i.e., making statements through published reports and otherwise to the effect that targeted features of its platforms are not manipulative or otherwise designed to promote young users’ prolonged and unhealthy engagement with social media, and that its platforms are designed and maintained to ensure safe experiences for young users. It failed to reveal facts material to the users’ transaction with Meta [Redacted] the revealing of which would have been material to users’ decision to engage with the platforms.

1006. Individual consumers have suffered damages as a result of Meta’s conduct. Again, all of the allegations regarding Meta’s practices apply to tens of thousands of Michigan residents.

1007. Meta’s violations of the MCPA were persistent, knowing, and willful.