State claims victory as Meta's Motion to Dismiss fails

CONCORD - The Attorney Generals Office on Wednesday announced a major legal victory for the State, as the Merrimack County Superior Court ruled to allow New Hampshire's lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) and Instagram, LLC to proceed.

The court denied Meta's motion to dismiss, allowing the State's five-count complaint, which centers on allegations that the companies' use of manipulative design features that it knows harms children's mental health, will continue.

The State's lawsuit accuses Meta of knowingly using addictive design features and algorithms on its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, to encourage compulsive use by teenagers, causing harm to their mental health and well-being. With over 10 million under-18 users on Facebook and 32 million on Instagram in the United States, including a significant number in New Hampshire, the State alleges that Meta has intentionally deployed these harmful design features, profiting from user data and selling targeted advertising.

Attorney General John M. Formella expressed strong support for the court's decision, emphasizing that it is a critical step in holding corporations accountable for putting profits over the safety of kids.

"This ruling is the first step toward holding Meta accountable for its actions in New Hampshire. This is a clear victory for the people of New Hampshire, particularly our children, who are increasingly vulnerable to the addictive and harmful features embedded in social media platforms," he said. "Meta's business model thrives by exploiting teenagers' attention, and today's decision sends a message that the court will allow the State's case seeking accountability from the social media giant for its harmful conduct to proceed. New Hampshire will not stand by while our children's mental and emotional health is put at risk for the sake of profit."

Key Points of the Court's Ruling:

• Personal Jurisdiction: The court affirmed that it has jurisdiction over Meta. Meta's substantial business activities in New Hampshire, including targeting local users with its design features and advertisements, provide a clear connection to the State's claims.
• Section 230: The court rejected Meta's claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability. The court ruled that the State's claims are based on Meta's own conduct in designing addictive features, not its role as a publisher of third-party content.
• First Amendment: The State's claims target Meta's product design decisions, not its editorial discretion over content. As such, the court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect Meta from liability in this case.
• Consumer Protection Act: The court concluded that the State has sufficiently alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The court rejected Meta's arguments that the case should be dismissed because its conduct did not occur in New Hampshire, or not engaged in "trade or commerce" under the CPA.
• Products Liability and Negligence: The court found that the State had sufficiently alleged that Meta's platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, qualify as "products" under products liability law. Further, it was found that the State has sufficiently alleged that Meta owes a duty of care in designing these products and that its conduct has directly caused harm to New Hampshire's residents, especially minors.

"This lawsuit is about holding companies accountable when they put profit over the safety of children," Formella said. "We will continue to fight to ensure our children are safe online and that companies are responsible for their actions."