PITTSBURGH – A Pennsylvania teenager’s lawsuit against Facebook and Instagram that holds the social media apps responsible for the development of her eating disorder and related self-harm has been transferred to a federal court in California.
Isabella Dienes of Rochester Mills first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 10 versus Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC, Facebook Payments, Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC, Instagram, LLC and Siculus, Inc., all of Menlo Park, Calif.
“Plaintiff Isabella Dienes is a 19-year-old girl who is a heavy user of Meta platforms. Shortly after registering to use Meta platforms(s) at the age of six, plaintiff began engaging in addictive and problematic use of the platform(s). Dienes’s interest in any activity other than viewing and posting on Meta platforms(s) progressively declined,” the suit said.
“Prompted by the addictive design of defendants’ product(s), and the constant notifications that defendants’ platform pushed Dienes 24 hours a day, she began getting less and less sleep. As a proximate result of her addiction to Meta platforms(s), and specifically due to recommendations and content defendants selected and showed to Dienes, an adolescent user of Meta platforms(s), she subsequently developed injuries including, but not limited to, attempted self-harm, self-harm, eating disorder, including binge-eating, excessive exercising, and purging.”
The suit added that the defendants have “designed Meta platforms(s) to allow children and adolescents to use, become addicted to, and abuse their product without the consent of the users’ parents, like [the plaintiff’s] parents” – and “specifically designed Meta platforms(s) to be an attractive nuisance to underage users, but failed to exercise the ordinary care owed to underage business invitees to prevent the rampant, foreseeable, and deleterious impact on adolescent users that access the Meta platforms.”
Additionally, the suit claimed that the defendants know or knew of the prospect of its adolescent users becoming addicted to social media platforms, but pushing ahead with their marketing nonetheless.
“Defendants have intentionally designed their product to maximize users’ screen time, using complex algorithms designed to exploit human psychology and driven by advanced computer algorithms and artificial intelligence available to two of the largest technology companies in the world. Defendants have progressively modified their product to promote problematic and excessive use that they know threatens the actuation of addictive and self-destructive behavioral patterns,” the suit claimed.
On Aug. 29, counsel for both sides filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines in the case, pending the decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on a motion to transfer the case.
“On Aug. 1, 2022, plaintiff Brianna Murden, who is the plaintiff in Murden v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Et.Al., No. 3:22-cv-01511 (Southern District of Illinois), filed a motion with the MDL Panel (a) seeking to coordinate or consolidate 28 other actions similar to this action and (b) asking the MDL Panel to transfer the centralized cases to the Northern District of Illinois or the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The MDL Panel has ordered that responses to the MDL Transfer Motion shall be filed by Aug. 30, 2022, and that replies shall be filed by Sept. 6, 2022,” the motion stated.
“Counsel for plaintiff Dienes has designated this case as a related action for potential inclusion in any coordinated proceeding created by the MDL Panel, and for this reason, the parties agree that all activity and deadlines in this case should be stayed pending the MDL Panel’s decision. A stay would promote judicial economy by avoiding the possibility of duplicative litigation, and the Parties agree that no party would be prejudiced by the issuance of a stay. Courts frequently stay proceedings where, as here, a case is in its early stages and a decision from the MDL Panel on a motion to transfer is pending. Stays have already been entered in other actions pending resolution of the MDL Transfer Motion.”
Counsel explained the instant litigation is in its very early stages, with the plaintiff having filed the complaint on Aug. 10, 2022 and Meta’s responsive pleading is currently due on Oct. 14, 2022.
“Good cause exists to issue a stay because the case ultimately may be transferred to another court. Therefore, a stay pending the MDL Panel’s decision would avoid the possibility of duplicative litigation and therefore serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. The parties agree that if this case is not transferred under Section 1407, the defendants shall have 30 days from the date of the MDL Panel’s decision to file its response to the complaint,” the motion said.
“All parties respectfully reserve all other rights, including but not limited to with respect to any position taken by the parties before the MDL Panel, plaintiffs’ ability to dismiss their claims against defendants during the pendency of the stay, and defendants’ ability to object to issues related to service and/or jurisdiction.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan authorized a stay in Dienes’s action on Aug. 30.
“On Aug. 29, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines pending decision of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on motion to transfer. Finding good cause for the request to stay all deadlines, the Court hereby grants the motion,” Ranjan said.
“It is ordered that the case is hereby stayed pending disposition by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of the pending motion in MDL No. 3047 to centralize this case in an MDL for pretrial proceedings; and it is further ordered that, should the JPML deny that motion, defendants shall file their answers or otherwise respond to the complaint within 30 days of such an order.”
UPDATE
Subsequent to the stay being granted and alongside 44 other substantially-similar actions, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 19.
“On Oct. 6, 2022, the Panel transferred 20 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Northern District of California. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Rogers,” according to the conditional transfer order.
“Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of Oct. 6, 2022, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed seven days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this seven-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.”
However, no such opposition order was filed, thereby completing the transfer.
For counts of strict liability (design defect), strict liability (failure to warn), strict liability (manufacturing defect), products liability (negligent design), products liability (negligent failure to warn), products liability (negligent manufacturing), negligence/gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent failure to recall/retrofit and medical monitoring, the plaintiff is seeking the defendants to be declared jointly and severally liable, compensatory damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, medical monitoring costs and any other relief the Court may deem equitable and just.
The plaintiff is represented by Eve M. Elsen, Emily Jeffcott and Narmeen Nkeiti of Morgan & Morgan, in Pittsburgh, Pensacola, Fla. and Orlando, Fla., respectively.
The defendants are represented by Joseph H. Blum of Shook Hardy & Bacon, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01166
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com