A Nevada judge has confirmed her authority to oversee the attorney general’s case against Meta’s Messenger app, although she has dismissed several components of the lawsuit. This legal battle commenced in January when Attorney General Aaron Ford initiated a series of lawsuits targeting Meta-owned platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The state alleges that Meta’s algorithms are intentionally designed to foster addiction among young users.
Key Developments in the Case
The recent hearing, presided over by District Judge Joanna Kishner, centered on the state’s claims against Messenger. After extensive arguments, Judge Kishner affirmed her jurisdiction over the matter. However, she granted a motion to dismiss three specific claims: one under Nevada’s deceptive trade practices act, a products liability claim, and an unjust enrichment claim. Importantly, these dismissals come with the opportunity for the state to amend its allegations.
“The case is going forward,” stated Michael Gayan, the attorney representing the state. He emphasized that despite the dismissals, the judge’s ruling permits the state to submit a revised complaint with additional allegations.
In response to the hearing, attorneys for Meta opted not to provide comments. The company has previously contended that the District Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case, citing its status as a national and global entity.
Gayan countered this argument, asserting, “Meta knows it has millions of Nevada users of Messenger. It knows where they are. It knows what they’re doing. It’s harvesting all of their data and using it and exploiting it for commercial purposes.”
Meta’s attorney, Timothy Hester, argued that the state had not demonstrated that Meta specifically targeted Nevada users and claimed protections under the First Amendment and Section 230, a federal law that shields tech platforms from liability for user-generated content.
However, Gayan maintained that these defenses do not apply in this case, clarifying that the state is not seeking to compel Meta to remove any posts. Judge Kishner concurred, affirming that the First Amendment and Section 230 defenses were not applicable in this context.
The attorney general’s office expressed satisfaction with Judge Kishner’s ruling on personal jurisdiction, highlighting their commitment to holding accountable companies that overlook the potential harms inflicted on children.
District judge rules she has authority to hear Messenger part of AG’s case against Meta
A Nevada judge has confirmed her authority to oversee the attorney general’s case against Meta’s Messenger app, although she has dismissed several components of the lawsuit. This legal battle commenced in January when Attorney General Aaron Ford initiated a series of lawsuits targeting Meta-owned platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The state alleges that Meta’s algorithms are intentionally designed to foster addiction among young users.
Key Developments in the Case
The recent hearing, presided over by District Judge Joanna Kishner, centered on the state’s claims against Messenger. After extensive arguments, Judge Kishner affirmed her jurisdiction over the matter. However, she granted a motion to dismiss three specific claims: one under Nevada’s deceptive trade practices act, a products liability claim, and an unjust enrichment claim. Importantly, these dismissals come with the opportunity for the state to amend its allegations.
“The case is going forward,” stated Michael Gayan, the attorney representing the state. He emphasized that despite the dismissals, the judge’s ruling permits the state to submit a revised complaint with additional allegations.
In response to the hearing, attorneys for Meta opted not to provide comments. The company has previously contended that the District Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case, citing its status as a national and global entity.
Gayan countered this argument, asserting, “Meta knows it has millions of Nevada users of Messenger. It knows where they are. It knows what they’re doing. It’s harvesting all of their data and using it and exploiting it for commercial purposes.”
Meta’s attorney, Timothy Hester, argued that the state had not demonstrated that Meta specifically targeted Nevada users and claimed protections under the First Amendment and Section 230, a federal law that shields tech platforms from liability for user-generated content.
However, Gayan maintained that these defenses do not apply in this case, clarifying that the state is not seeking to compel Meta to remove any posts. Judge Kishner concurred, affirming that the First Amendment and Section 230 defenses were not applicable in this context.
The attorney general’s office expressed satisfaction with Judge Kishner’s ruling on personal jurisdiction, highlighting their commitment to holding accountable companies that overlook the potential harms inflicted on children.