• by Wendy Davis , 11 hours ago

Meta Platforms is seeking to block a state coalition of attorneys general from asking a jury to assess penalties of $1.4 trillion, should the jury find Meta liable for violating state consumer protection laws and the federal children's privacy law.

That $1.4 trillion figure -- which is nearly as high as Meta's $1.53 trillion market capitalization -- is "untethered to any claimed violation or to the record," Meta writes in a motion filed late Monday with U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The company adds that if it is found liable, Rogers should determine the appropriate penalty without input from a jury.

Meta writes that allowing the attorneys general to present their "unsupported" $1.4 trillion claim would "improperly suggest to the jury" that the states have "a credible claim to wrongdoing that outstrips any previously recognized by our legal system."

Some of the underlying filings are sealed, and it's not entirely clear how the states arrived at the $1.4 trillion figure.

Meta's new papers come in advance of an August trial at which four states will attempt to prove that Meta violated state laws by misrepresenting that its platforms are not designed to be addictive, and by harming teens.

The states will also attempt to prove that Meta violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by knowingly collecting personal data from children under 13.

A total of 29 state attorneys general are suing Meta in federal court, and numerous others sued the company in state courts.

The August trial will only address claims by California, Connecticut, Kentucky and New Jersey.

Late last month, Rogers rejected Meta's motion for a ruling in its favor before trial, writing that a jury should determine whether Meta violated consumer protection laws or the federal privacy law.

Meta made several arguments, including that "social media addiction" was not a recognized disorder, and that statements regarding whether its services were designed to be "addictive" were not actionable.

"'Social media addiction' is not an established psychiatric condition," Meta wrote in papers filed in January. "The dearth of evidence on this issue dooms the AGs' addiction allegations that form the core of this litigation, as Meta cannot have deceived consumers regarding a psychiatric condition that has not been proven to exist."

Rogers disagreed, writing last week that there is "a material dispute of fact as to the existence, qualities, and/or scope of social media addiction as well as whether Meta's statements denying that their platforms are designed to be addictive were false."

The trial is just one of numerous battles Meta faces over allegations regarding social media addiction. The platform also faces lawsuits by other attorneys general, local school districts, cities, teens and their families. Other defendants in many of those suits include Google, TikTok and Snap.

So far, two of those cases have resulted in jury verdicts against Meta. In March, a jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Google's YouTube liable for harming a young woman's mental health by designing their services to be addictive. The jury assessed damages at $6 million, and said Meta should pay 70% of that figure and Google should pay 30%.

That same week, a separate jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for violating that state's consumer-protection law and ordered it to pay $375 million.

Other states, including Massachusetts and Nevada, are separately suing Meta in state courts.

Meta has argued that all of the suits related to addiction are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which immunizes web companies from liability for users' posts) and the First Amendment.

Among other arguments, the company says that although the lawsuits frame the claims as centered on supposedly addictive design features, like videos that play automatically, the claims are actually about content itself.

"If there were no videos to play, there would be no 'autoplay'," the company argued in one of the many suits it's facing. "Regardless of Meta’s publishing choices, if Instagram had no content, and instead displayed a blank screen upon loading, no one would use it, nor could possibly claim that they were addicted to the service."

Rogers previously ruled that Section 230 and the First Amendment protect Meta from some consumer protection claims, but not others. For instance, she dismissed claims that tied Meta's algorithmic recommendations to social media addiction, but allowed claims with regard to Instagram's appearance-altering filters to move forward.

Other judges have more fully rejected Meta's arguments with regard to Section 230 and the First Amendment.

For instance, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in April that the state attorney general can move forward with a lawsuit alleging that Meta violated consumer protection laws by designing Instagram to addict young users.

The court said in that case that the attorney general's claims don't "seek to impose liability on Meta for information provided by third parties," but instead "allege harm stemming from Meta's own conduct either by designing a social media platform that capitalizes on the developmental vulnerabilities of children or by affirmatively misleading consumers about the safety of the Instagram platform."

Nevada's highest court likewise rejected Meta's motion to dismiss that state's lawsuit against the company.

Meta signaled last month in Supreme Court filings that it will attempt to appeal the rulings in Massachusetts and Nevada. The company said in two separate filings that the state court rulings were "incorrect."

Meta made that statement in a request to extend the deadline to seek Supreme Court review from July 23 to August 10.

Justice Elena Kagan, who handles appeals from Nevada, granted that request last week.

It is not yet clear from publicly available documents whether Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles appeals from Massachusetts, has acted on the request.