court rules meta
| | |

US court rules Meta, others must face thousands of social media addiction suits

A US appeals court on Monday, August 10, allowed thousands of lawsuits to move forward against Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s Google, ByteDance’s TikTok and Snap Inc’s Snapchat over claims they designed their products to be addictive to young users.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by Meta and TikTok seeking to overturn a lower court ruling requiring them to face more than 3,000 lawsuits filed in federal court, saying the companies had appealed too early.

The companies had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — which generally shields online companies from claims over content posted by their users — also bars lawsuits claiming they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.

Must Read

Against oppressive algorithms, addictive design, parents can’t always keep up


Against oppressive algorithms, addictive design, parents can’t always keep up

Most appeals come after a case has concluded with a ruling or a verdict. The companies contended that they should not have to wait until the litigation ends to challenge the lower court’s rejection of their immunity defense. But the 9th Circuit said Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from lawsuits, so the appeal was premature.

Meta loses bid to delay multistate trial

The court also denied Meta’s bid to postpone a trial beginning on Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by 29 state attorneys general alleging that the company illegally collected and used children’s data, designed its social media platforms to keep young users hooked, and misled consumers about their safety. The company had argued that the trial couldn’t go forward while the appeal had been outstanding.

The news comes days after a New Mexico judge found Meta had created a public nuisance in the state and ordered it to pay $567 million into a teen mental health fund and implement youth-safety measures.

A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment.

Representatives for TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday’s ruling.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, attorneys representing thousands of school districts and individuals suing Meta and other companies in the litigation over the claims in federal court, said in a statement the ruling would allow the states’ trial to move forward, as well as a trial over claims brought by school districts scheduled for February.

“A trial is how the public finds out what Meta knew about its products’ impact on children, when it knew it, and what it chose to do with that knowledge,” the attorneys said. “Meta has fought to keep that evidence from the public.”

Thousands of lawsuits

Filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege that social media companies intentionally addicted young users, contributing to surging depression, anxiety and body-image issues and a broader mental health crisis among American youth in recent years.

Parents, school districts, states and other plaintiffs had argued that the trial court’s ruling was not final and therefore could not be appealed. But they also objected to the companies’ arguments about Section 230, saying it does not cover claims related to how they operate and design their products.

The cases, which have been centralized before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies appealed Rogers’ orders in 2023 and 2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward.

The companies are facing hundreds of additional lawsuits over similar claims in state court, with approximately 3,300 of them in a consolidated proceeding in California state court.

In the first lawsuit to go to trial in the California litigation, and a closely watched test of how juries might respond to similar claims, a Los Angeles jury in March found Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that harm young people. The jury awarded $6 million to a young woman who says she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.

The New Mexico public nuisance ruling against Meta followed an earlier phase in the trial, in which a jury in March ordered it to pay $375 million after finding it had misled consumers about the safety of its platforms.

Both Meta and Google, which have denied the claims in those cases, said they would appeal. – Rappler.com

Similar Posts

  • |

    3 killed, 25 injured in Ukraine drone strike on Russia

    Three people were killed and 25 others injured after Ukrainian drones struck Russia’s Belgorod region, according to Russian authorities. Officials said the drone attack took place overnight, targeting areas in and around Belgorod. Emergency teams responded to the affected locations and began rescue and relief operations following the strikes. The latest attack comes amid continued fighting between Russia and Ukraine, with both sides carrying out frequent drone and missile strikes against targets across the border. Meanwhile, Russia has launched an attack on Ukraine’s strategic port city of Odesa. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed the Russian strike, saying the attack caused damage to the Odesa port. Zelenskyy condemned the assault and said the continued attacks on civilian and critical infrastructure demonstrated the intensity of the ongoing conflict. The strikes on Belgorod and Odesa highlight the continued escalation of cross-border attacks as the war enters another phase of sustained military confrontation.

  • | |

    Rubio and Bessent stayed aboard decoy jet as Trump…

    Two members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet remained aboard a decoy aircraft after Trump quietly departed the plane and boarded a different flight while in Turkey last month, according to a US television network report. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stayed on what was widely believed to be Air Force One and did not join the alternate flight arranged for Trump due to security concerns tied to Iran. Trump boarded Air Force One on July 8 alongside both officials as well as members of the traveling press before slipping away via a catering truck, which transported him discreetly to a separate military aircraft. Because the designation “Air Force One” applies to whichever plane the president occupies, the original aircraft retained the call sign even after Trump had already left it, effectively turning it into the decoy. According to the report, Rubio and Bessent remained on the first aircraft in order to preserve the presidential line of succession in case anything happened to Trump during the flight. Under that line of succession, Vice President JD Vance would assume power if the president died or became incapacitated, followed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The Secretary of State ranks next in the order, followed by the Treasury Secretary. Others who stayed aboard the original aircraft designated as Air Force One included White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and White House communications director Steven Cheung. The second aircraft that carried Trump out of Ankara also included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to separate US media reports. Speaking to reporters Monday night, Trump said the decision to carry out the plane switch came from the US military and the Secret Service, who he said wanted him to travel on a different aircraft. He did not provide specifics about the nature of the security threat, saying only that he regularly receives numerous threats and that any consequential president faces the same. A request for comment sent to the White House had not been answered as of publication.

  • | |

    Australian court denies India exclusive claim over…

    The Federal Court of Australia has thrown out an appeal by India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority seeking to register Basmati as a certification trademark for rice in the country, a ruling Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce welcomed in a statement issued Wednesday. The Indian authority, known as APEDA, had originally applied to register Basmati as a certification trademark for rice sold in Australia. A delegate of the Australian Registrar of Trade Marks rejected that application on December 22, 2022, finding that the word Basmati could not distinguish rice certified by APEDA from Basmati rice legitimately grown and sold by other producers. APEDA then appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Australia, which has now upheld the original rejection. Pakistan’s commerce ministry said the ruling confirms its longstanding position that Basmati functions as a geographical indication tied to a historically recognized growing region spanning parts of both Pakistan and India, rather than a term any single country can claim exclusively. The ministry noted that the original registrar’s decision had already acknowledged that Basmati rice is grown in Pakistan as well, and that Pakistani traders hold an equally legitimate claim to use the name. By dismissing APEDA’s appeal, the ministry said, the Federal Court affirmed those earlier findings. The ministry added that the Australian court also ordered APEDA to cover the respondent’s legal costs, either through agreement or a formal assessment. Islamabad described the ruling as a significant setback to Indian efforts to secure exclusive international rights over the Basmati name. The ministry said no single national authority can claim sole ownership of the term while excluding producers and exporters who have an equally valid right to use it, adding that Pakistan has consistently pushed back against Indian attempts to monopolize the Basmati name and has worked with relevant institutions and industry stakeholders to protect the interests of the country’s growers, millers and exporters. According to the ministry, the outcome safeguards the commercial and intellectual property interests of Pakistan’s Basmati sector and preserves the right of Pakistani producers to market authentic Basmati rice in the Australian market. Officials said they intend to keep protecting Basmati as a core part of Pakistan’s agricultural heritage and export identity, pursuing similar protections in other foreign jurisdictions on the basis of the rice variety’s historical origin, established reputation and distinctive qualities. Commerce Minister Jam Kamal Khan praised ministry officials and other stakeholders involved in the case, calling the ruling an important win for Pakistan’s agricultural heritage, commercial interests and export identity. India and Pakistan have long disputed the origins of Basmati rice, which both countries grow extensively. The rice traces its roots to the Punjab region, which was split into East Punjab, now part of India, and West Punjab, now part of Pakistan, following partition in 1947. In 2006, the European Union formally recognized Basmati as a joint product of both countries under its special geographical indication rules.

  • | | |

    Urmila Matondkar’s ex-husband Mohsin Akhtar shar…

    Mohsin Akhtar, the former husband of veteran Bollywood actress Urmila Matondkar, has shared a fresh collection of romantic photographs with his new wife, Nida Bhatt, giving fans another glimpse into their wedding celebrations. The 43-year-old businessman and model posted photographs from his walima ceremony several months after announcing his marriage to Nida. Alongside the pictures, Mohsin shared an emotional message expressing his love and appreciation for his new wife. In his heartfelt post, Mohsin described Nida as much more than his wife, calling her his “home” and “peace.” He also promised to stand by her, value her and continue loving her throughout every chapter of their journey together. The new photographs offer glimpses of the couple celebrating their marriage with family and friends. Mohsin had previously shared pictures from his wedding with Nida in June, officially revealing details of his new marriage to his followers. His latest social media post has attracted attention largely because of his previous high-profile marriage to Urmila Matondkar, one of Bollywood’s well-known actresses. Before marrying Nida, Mohsin was married to Urmila. The couple tied the knot on February 4, 2016, in an intimate ceremony attended by close friends and family members. Their relationship attracted considerable attention at the time, partly because of their age difference and their interfaith marriage. Mohsin, who comes from a Kashmiri business background and has worked as a model, is around 10 years younger than Urmila. Following their separation, both have continued with their respective lives and careers. Mohsin’s latest posts now focus on his new relationship and marriage, with his affectionate message to Nida offering a glimpse into his current personal life. The newly shared wedding photographs have given fans a closer look at the celebrations surrounding Mohsin and Nida’s marriage. His romantic caption has also drawn attention, particularly his description of his wife as his source of comfort and happiness. While Urmila Matondkar remains a prominent name in Indian cinema, Mohsin Akhtar’s latest social media update has shifted the spotlight toward his new chapter in life. The couple’s wedding pictures are continuing to attract interest online as fans react to the romantic moments and Mohsin’s emotional message for his new bride.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *