• Who: Attorneys general from 29 states filed a letter brief in their lawsuit against Meta Platforms.
• Why: The AGs argue a single joint trial to efficiently resolve claims Meta designed its social media platforms in a way that harmed children.
• Where: The lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
• How to get help: Has you or your child suffered mental health issues potentially linked to social media use? You may qualify to join a class action investigation.

Attorneys general from 29 states are arguing a single joint trial is the most efficient way to resolve their claims that Meta Platforms engaged in nationwide misconduct by designing its social media platforms in a way that harmed the mental and physical health of children.

The attorneys general filed a letter brief Dec. 12 in California federal court in their lawsuit against Meta, arguing that a single presentation of evidence will prove the company’s alleged nationwide misconduct.

“This is a civil law enforcement action seeking penalties, injunctive relief and disgorgement of Meta’s profits,” the attorneys general say in the letter brief. “Damages are not sought on behalf of any state, state agency or individual. Therefore, a single joint trial, with a single presentation of evidence proving Meta’s nationwide misconduct, is far and away the most efficient path forward.”

The attorneys general argue that a single trial will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and witnesses, conserve resources and allow for a more efficient resolution of the case.

The attorneys general claim Meta has benefited from their pre-trial coordination and that the company’s proposal for multiple trials would inject delay, uncertainty and massive inefficiency into the case.

The attorneys general acknowledge the trial will be complex, but argue that multi-sovereign consumer protection enforcement actions in federal court are not uncommon and that their pre-trial coordination serves a critical function in enabling a unified and streamlined multi-state proceeding.

The attorneys general further argue that Meta’s proposed severance of the case into more than a dozen separate trials would burden the court with years of continuous litigation and undermine the efficiencies that have thus far advanced the case.

The attorneys general also contend Meta cannot reasonably justify a trial plan that would require 19 repetitive, serial trials over several years, rather than a single, efficient joint proceeding.

Ultimately, the attorneys general claim Meta’s effort to fragment the trial process reflects neither the realities of the case nor the scope of its nationwide conduct, but is instead a transparent attempt to delay resolution through manufactured complexity.

In another recent case involving Meta, a class action lawsuit claims Zappos allowed Meta to intercept shoppers’ private communications and personal data despite promising to keep that information confidential.

The plaintiffs are represented by Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, and a number of other attorneys general.

The Meta social media addiction lawsuit is In re: People of the State of California, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 4:22-md-03047-YGR-PHK and 4:23-cv-05448-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements: