By Diana Novak Jones
Aug 18 (Reuters) - As opening statements get underway in a landmark trial over claims that Meta Platforms misled the public about the safety of Instagram and Facebook for young users and violated child privacy laws, one of the biggest fights in the case has already been resolved: whether a bipartisan group of U.S. states could present their claims together.
The states pushed for a single trial covering state consumer protection and federal privacy claims brought by 29 attorneys general, while Meta argued for a series of smaller trials grouping states that have similar laws.
The fight was about more than courtroom logistics. The states argued that the case centers on company-wide decisions affecting young users across the country and seeks nationwide changes to Meta's platforms, and that jurors should hear a single story about Meta's actions. Meta countered that jurors should evaluate states' claims separately because the underlying laws differ and warned that a combined proceeding could blur important distinctions among the claims.
Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted a hybrid approach for the multi-week trial, allowing Colorado, California, Kentucky and New Jersey to try their state law claims together, while also including the federal law claims brought by all of the states. Although Rogers will decide the case, she appointed an advisory jury whose findings may inform her final ruling.
#states #young
Aug 18 (Reuters) - As opening statements get underway in a landmark trial over claims that Meta Platforms misled the public about the safety of Instagram and Facebook for young users and violated child privacy laws, one of the biggest fights in the case has already been resolved: whether a bipartisan group of U.S. states could present their claims together.
The states pushed for a single trial covering state consumer protection and federal privacy claims brought by 29 attorneys general, while Meta argued for a series of smaller trials grouping states that have similar laws.
The fight was about more than courtroom logistics. The states argued that the case centers on company-wide decisions affecting young users across the country and seeks nationwide changes to Meta's platforms, and that jurors should hear a single story about Meta's actions. Meta countered that jurors should evaluate states' claims separately because the underlying laws differ and warned that a combined proceeding could blur important distinctions among the claims.
Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted a hybrid approach for the multi-week trial, allowing Colorado, California, Kentucky and New Jersey to try their state law claims together, while also including the federal law claims brought by all of the states. Although Rogers will decide the case, she appointed an advisory jury whose findings may inform her final ruling.
#states #young
8 hours ago
