Quantcast

Judge: Nothing federal about New Mexico's child-danger lawsuit against Meta

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Thursday, November 28, 2024

Judge: Nothing federal about New Mexico's child-danger lawsuit against Meta

State AG
Ra

Attorney General Raul Torrez | Attorney General Raul Torrez official website

SANTA FE, N.M. (Legal Newsline) - Rather than rule on a motion to dismiss, a New Mexico federal judge has sent the State's lawsuit against Facebook owner Meta back to state court, where it was first filed.

Judge Margaret Strickland on Feb. 5 granted state Attorney General Raul Torrez's motion to remand, after Meta had transferred the case from state to federal court. His lawsuit claims Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp are not safe for minors because of sexual predators.

The suit alleges three violations of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act and makes a claim for public nuisance. Meta believed the case invoked questions pertaining to federal child sex trafficking and pornography laws.

"The Court finds that a federal law issue is not necessarily raised because the State's claims do not require proof of a federal law violation," Strickland's order says.

"The amended complaint alleges several 'unfair and deceptive' or 'unconscionable' trade practices and nuisances that are not (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) violations."

Meta and Mark Zuckerberg filed motions to dismiss the case during the brief time it was in federal court.

Many of the things New Mexico complains about, including sexual images, are prohibited under Meta’s rules and represent third-party content covered by Section 230 prohibiting lawsuits against social media platforms, Meta said. 

AG Torrez announced the lawsuit in December, claiming Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp products “are not safe spaces for children but rather prime locations for predators to trade child pornography and solicit minors for sex.” 

New Mexico is represented by Linda Singer and David Ackerman of Motley Rice, the plaintiffs’ law firm that has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fees representing government entities in lawsuits over opioids, tobacco and other products.

The lawsuit joins many others against social media platforms, driven in part by private lawyers working under contingency-fee contracts, that attempt to use state public nuisance and consumer protection laws to win money from Facebook, Snap and other companies. 

A federal judge in San Francisco last year overseeing multidistrict litigation dismissed some claims on Section 230 and First Amendment grounds but allowed plaintiffs to proceed with claims design features that serve up content or reward users with “likes” could be grounds for a lawsuit.

The state accused Meta of violating state law by serving up ads with “problematic content” and using algorithms that are “addictive to young users” and designed to inhibit “the ability of those users to self-regulate.” It said the platforms cause “an increased rate of suicide” as well as “dissociative behavior, withdrawal symptoms, social isolation, damage to body image and self-worth, increased risky behavior, exposure to predators, sexual exploitation, and other profound mental health issues.”

Meta argued it is “black-letter law” that New Mexico users can’t create personal jurisdiction over the company.  It also cited a Ninth Circuit decision last year dismissing under Section 230 claims against Reddit that the platform allowed users to access child pornography. And it said New Mexico’s public nuisance law doesn’t apply to legal products, or claims that involve injuries to individuals as opposed to interference with a right held by the public at large.

More News