Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/26/2023 07:22 PM David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Valenzuela,Deputy Clerk
1 Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar No. 224457)
lhazam@lchb.com
2 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
4 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
5 Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550)
nroberts@protectuslaw.com
6 PROTECTUS LAW
1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000
7 Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 810-1300
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi, Neveen
9 Radwan, and Khaled Fawzi
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
12
13 COORDINATION PROCEEDING Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings
SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 3.400] JCCP No. 5255
14 For Filing Purposes: 22STCV21355
IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
15 ADDICTION (JCCP No. 5255) PETITION, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-
ON CASE, AND REQUEST FOR
16 COORDINATION
17 Judge: Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl
SSC-12
18
[HEARING NOT REQUESTED]
19
[Filed concurrently [Proposed] Order]
20
21 Christina Arlington Smith, individually Los Angeles County Superior Court
22 and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Case No. 22STCV21355
Walton, Deceased, and Heriberto Arroyo,
23 individually and and as successor-in-
interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo,
24 Deceased, and Christal Arroyo,
Individually, Jessica Williams, individually
25
and as successor-in-interest to Zaiden
26 Baldwin, Deceased,
27 Plaintiffs,
28 v.
1
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1
TikTok Inc., ByteDance, Inc., and Does 1-
2 100, Inclusive,
Defendants.
3
4
D.S., K.R., and K.S.
5
Plaintiffs,
6
7 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV24332
8 TikTok Inc., ByteDance, Inc., and Does 1-
100, Inclusive,
9
Defendants.
10
11 J.P., R.P, and M.P.,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV26778
14
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
15 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance
Inc.,
16
Defendants.
17
Janet Majewski, individually and as the
18
Personal Representative of the Estate of
19 Emily Zavala,
20 Plaintiffs, Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV26829
21 v.
22
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
23 Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc.,
ByteDance Inc.,
24
Defendants.
25
26 J.J., J.D., and A.D.
27 Plaintiffs,
28 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court
2
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 Case No. 22STCV8201
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
2 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance
Inc.,
3
4 Defendants.
5 M.L. and N.L.,
6 Plaintiffs,
7 Los Angeles County Superior Court
v. Case No. 22STCV8204
8
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc.,
9
Defendants.
10
11 A.S. and E.S.
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV28202
14
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
15 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance
Inc., Snap Inc.,
16 Defendants.
17 L.W. and C.W.
18
Plaintiffs,
19
v. Los Angeles County Superior Court
20 Case No. 22STCV28200
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
21 Facebook, Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc.,
22 and ByteDance Inc.,
23 Defendants.
24 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S.,
25 Plaintiffs,
26
v. Yolo County Superior Court
27 Case No. CV2022-1472
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
28 Facebook, Inc., YouTube, LLC, Google
3
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc., and
ByteDance Inc.,
2
Defendants.
3
K.L. and S.S.,
4
Plaintiffs,
5
v. San Bernardino County Superior Court
6 Case No. Pending
7 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc.,
8 and ByteDance Inc.,
9 Defendants.
10
11
TO THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. KUHL, COORDINATION TRIAL JUDGE:
12
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that after the initial Petition for Coordination in Social Media
13
Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 5255 (“JCCP 5255”), was granted on
14
December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs MARIAM FAWZI, NEVEEN RADWAN, and KHALED FAWZI,
15
(“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned case, Fawzi et. al v. Meta Platforms Inc., et. al. (hereinafter,
16
“Fawzi” or “Add-On Case”), Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 22CV409251, on December 29,
17
2022, and is requesting coordination of Fawzi into JCCP 5255. Pursuant to Rule 3.544 of the
18
California Rules of Court, Plaintiff requests that this Add-On Case be coordinated into JCCP 5255,
19
solely for pre-trial purposes, along with the actions that are already the subject of this coordinated
20
proceeding. A true and correct copy of the Fawzi Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The
21
Summons and Complaint have been served. See Exhibit 2 (Proofs of Service).
22
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff is asserting a claim or claims for damages
23
generally relating to Social Media Cases. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 404, et seq., of the
24
California Code of Civil Procedure, this Add-On Case is eligible for statewide coordination and
25
inclusion in Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, now pending before the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl,
26
Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
27
Plaintiff requests the coordination of this Add-On Case into JCCP 5255, pursuant to Code
28
4
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1, on the grounds that coordinating this Add-On Case
2 together with Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, before one judge, solely for pre-trial proceedings,
3 will promote the ends of justice. Sections 404.1 and 404.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
4 set forth the standards that “apply to a decision whether to grant a request to coordinate an additional
5 action.” See Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 11 Cal. App. 5th 626, 634 (2017). Code of Civil
6 Procedure section 404.1 provides that:
7 [c]oordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate
if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will
8 promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact
or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties,
9 witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product
of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of
10 the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or
judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation
11 should coordination be denied.
12 This Request is also made pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.544(c), which provides that
13 “[i]n deciding the request to coordinate [an add-on case], the court must consider the relative
14 development of the actions and the work product of counsel, in addition to any other relevant
15 matter.”
16 As preliminarily set forth in this Request, Plaintiff submits that these factors are met: 1
17 1. Whether common questions of law or fact predominate and are significant to the
18 litigation: Coordination of the above-captioned Add-On Case with Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255,
19 before one judge, solely for pre-trial proceedings, will promote the ends of justice because this Add-On
20 case involves the same or similar allegations and named defendants as the cases in JCCP 5255. Plaintiff
21 in this Add-On Case, like the plaintiffs in the coordinated actions, is an individual who alleges the use
22 of defendants’ social media platforms and sustained serious injuries from such usage. Plaintiff in the
23 Add-On Case named the following entities as defendants in their Complaint: Meta Platforms, Inc. and
24 Instagram, LLC. Upon information and belief, Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC are also
25 defendants in the actions coordinated into JCCP 5255. Plaintiff alleges the following claims against
26
1
27 To the extent any Defendant opposes the coordination of this Add-On Case, Plaintiff reserves the right to
submit points and authorities, together with supporting declarations and evidence, in further support of this
28 Request.
5
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 these Defendants: Strict Liability—Design Defect (all Defendants); Strict Liability—Failure To Warn
2 (all Defendants); Negligence (all Defendants); Fraudulent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all
3 Defendants); Negligent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all Defendants); Unfair Competition. On
4 information and belief, plaintiffs in the cases coordinated into JCCP 5255 allege similar claims. Not only
5 does this Add-On Case appear to share common questions of fact or law with the coordinated actions in
6 JCCP 5255, but these common questions appear to predominate over other individual questions.
7 Therefore coordination of this Add-On Case into JCCP 5255 would promote the ends of justice.
8 2. The convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel: Coordination of this Add-On Case
9 will promote the efficient use of judicial resources and convenience of all counsel by preventing the
10 duplication of effort by the parties, their counsel, witnesses, and the Court on discovery, discovery
11 disputes, and pre-trial adjudication of similar motions, such as pleadings challenges and summary
12 judgment/adjudication.
13 3. The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient
14 utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; and the calendar of the courts: The Petition to Coordinate
15 Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, was granted only recently on December 7, 2022. On December 29,
16 2022, the Chair of the Judicial Council of California issued an Order authorizing the Presiding Judge of
17 the Los Angeles Superior Court to assign a coordination trial judge to hear and determine JCCP 5255.
18 Then on January 5, 2023, the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl was assigned the Coordination Trial Judge for
19 Social Media Cases. No hearings have been held or are set in the coordinated proceeding since the
20 Petition for Coordination was granted, no case management orders have been entered, and no
21 coordinated discovery has commenced.
22 Similar to JCCP 5255, this Add-On Case is at the beginning of litigation. Fawzi was filed on
23 December 29, 2022 and has been designated to be complex under California Rule of Court, Rule
24 3.400. No initial status conference has been set, and no formal discovery has been exchanged.
25 Therefore, as JCCP 5255 and this Add-On Case are still at their initial stages, coordinating this
26 Add-On Case with the coordinated actions in Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, would be more efficient
27 for the courts, this Court, the parties, all counsel, and witnesses, and the Court, than denying coordination
28 and assigning this Add-On Case to a different court. Ultimately, coordination of this Add-On Case would
6
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 conserve the resources of the courts, all counsel, and the parties. Accordingly, the Court should grant
2 this Petition.
3 4. The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments: To the
4 extent the claims of the coordinated actions pending in JCCP 5255 and this Add-On Case are found to
5 be similar, with similarities predominating, there would be a significant advantage to the coordination
6 of the Add-On Case into JCCP 5255 to avoid duplicative and potentially inconsistent rulings, orders,
7 and judgments from the trial courts and potentially courts of appeal.
8 5. The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination
9 be denied: There appears to be a greater likelihood of reaching a resolution in the aggregate among
10 coordinated actions.
11 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and as the Add-On Case has been designated to be
12 complex under California Rule of Court, Rule 3.400, this Add-On Case is appropriate for coordination
13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1, and the Court should issue an order
14 coordinating this Add-On Case into JCCP No. 5255.
15 Plaintiff expressly qualifies this coordination request and states that this Request is intended
16 solely for pre-trial purposes only. Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 771 F.3d 1218, 1224–
17 25 (9th Cir. 2014). By this Petition, Notice of Potential Add-On Case, and Request for Coordination,
18 Plaintiff does not propose a joint trial of Plaintiff’s claims. Instead, Plaintiff expressly seeks to limit
19 this Request for coordination to pre-trial matters; this Request is intended solely for pre-trial
20 purposes. Through this Notice and Petition to Add-On, Plaintiff does not attempt nor acquiesce to
21 jointly try Plaintiff’s claims with any others’ claim(s).
22 If no party files or serves written notice opposing coordination of this action into JCCP 5255
23 within ten days of the date of service of this Petition as required by Rule 3.544 of the California
24 Rules of Court, Plaintiff further requests that this Petition be granted without a hearing and this Add-
25 On Case be deemed an included action in this coordinated proceeding.
26 A copy of this Petition will be submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council, and notice of
27 submission of this Petition will be served upon each party in this action and on all other parties to
28 the coordinated proceeding.
7
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
1 Proof of filing of a Notice of Submission of Notice of Potential Add-On Case and a copy of
2 this Petition pursuant to Rule 3.522 of the California Rules of Court, and any documents to be
3 submitted pursuant to Rule 3.523 of the California Rules of Court, will be submitted pursuant to and
4 within the time frames provided by Rules 3.522 and 3.523.
5
6
Dated: January 25, 2023
7
8 Respectfully submitted,
9 /s/ Lexi J. Hazam
10 Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar No. 224457)
lhazam@lchb.com
11 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
12 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
13 Facsimile: 415.956.1008
14 Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550)
nroberts@protectuslaw.com
15 PROTECTUS LAW
1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000
16 Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 810-1300
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi, Neveen Radwan,
18 and Khaled Fawzi
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255
EXHIBIT 1
E-FILED
12/29/2022 11:55 AM
Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar N0. 224457) Clerk Of Court
1hazam@lchb.com Superior Court of CA,
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP County Of Santa C|ara
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
220V409251
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Reviewed By: L. Martinez
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550)
nroberts@protectuslaw.com
PROTECTUS LAW
1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 8 1 0- 1 300
Attorneysfor Plaintififv Mariam Fawzi, Neveen Radwan,
and Khaled Fawzi
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12
22CV409251
13
MARIAM FAWZI, NEVEEN RADWAN, Case N0.
and KHALED FAWZI,
14
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
Plaintiffs, FOR JURY TRIAL
15
V. 1. Strict Liability—Design Defect (all
16 Defendants);
META PLATFORMS INC. and 2. Strict Liability—Failure T0 Warn (all
17
INSTAGRAM LLC,
Defendants);
Defendants. Negligence (all Defendants);
18 Fraudulent Concealment and Nondisclosure
(all Defendants);
19
Negligent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all
Defendants);
20
Unfair Competition—(all Defendants).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 3
III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................ 4
IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................... 4
A. Instagram ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Mariam’s Instagram Use ....................................................................................... 12
V. CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................... 14
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY—DESIGN DEFECT (ALL
DEFENDANTS) ............................................................................................................... 14
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY—FAILURE TO WARN (ALL
DEFENDANTS) ............................................................................................................... 1 5
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ..................................... 15
12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND
NONDISCLOSURE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ................................................................... 16
13
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT CONCEALMENT AND
NONDISCLOSURE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ................................................................... 17
14
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION (ALL DEFENDANTS) .................... 17
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 18
16 JURY DEMAND .......................................................................................................................... 19
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ i _
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs complain 0f Defendants as follows, based on their personal knowledge and 0n
information and belief:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi (“Mariam”), together With her mother Neveen Radwan
(“Neveen”) and her father Khaled Fawzi (“Khaled”), bring this action against Defendants Meta
Platforms Inc. (“Meta”) and its subsidiary Instagram LLC for injuries caused by Defendants’
product Instagram to Mariam.
2. “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.” So said Meta’s
own researchers of Instagram in an internal slide presentation in 2019. The presentation was part
10 0f a trove of documents leaked by former Meta employee Frances Haugen to journalists at the
11 Wall Street Journal and federal regulators in 2021. The Journal’s reporting 0n the documents
12 beginning in September 2021 caused a national and international uproar.
13 3. The documents confirmed What social scientists have long suspected: social media
14 products like Instagram can cause serious harm to the mental and physical health 0f young users,
15 especially t0 teenage girls like Mariam. Worse, this capacity for harm is not accidental but by
16 design: What makes Instagram a profitable enterprise for Meta is precisely what harms its young
17 users.
18 4. Instagram is popular in the United States and overseas, with roughly a billion
19 active monthly users worldwide and roughly 160 million users in the United States. It is
20 particularly popular among young people. About 22 million U.S. teenagers use Instagram daily.
21 Meta makes money from products like Instagram by using them as advertising platforms, offering
22 access t0 these vast and lucrative audiences t0 advertisers in exchange for roughly $70 billion in
23 annual advertising revenues in 2019. The success of this business model depends 0n Meta’s
24 ability to keep its users 0n its products (and thus exposed to its clients’ advertising) for as long
25 and as often as possible.
26 5. Instagram has numerous features designed t0 hook its users and maximize their
27 “engagement” With Instagram. These features exploit the natural human desire for social
28 interaction and the neurophysiology 0f the brain’s reward systems to keep users endlessly
1
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
scrolling, posting, “liking,” commenting, and counting the number 0f “likes” and comments t0
their own posts. Young users’ still-developing brains are particularly vulnerable t0 such
exploitation.
6. Once young users are hooked, according t0 the “mental health deep dive”
performed by Meta’s researchers using survey data as well as data generated by its products,
“[a]spects of Instagram exacerbate each other to create a perfect storm” that endangers young
users’ mental health. These aspects include specific design choices by Instagram, such as the
“Explore” feature (Which “serves users photos and Videos curated by an algorithm” and “can send
users deep into content that can be harmful”) and “selfie filters” (Which can “touch up” users’
10 faces in their pictures), as well as patterns 0f common use that Instagram exploits through these
11 design choices (“[t]he tendency to share only the best moments” and “a pressure to 100k perfect”).
12 The researchers concluded that this “perfect storm” could contribute to eating disorders,
13 unhealthy body image, and depression among teens.
14 7. The researchers found that “[s]ocial comparison,” or peoples’ assessment 0f their
15 own value relative t0 that 0f others, is “worse on Instagram” for teens than 0n other social media
16 platforms. One in five teens reported that Instagram “makes them feel worse about themselves.”
17 Roughly two in five teen users reported feeling “unattractive,” while one in ten teen users
18 reporting suicidal thoughts traced them to Instagram. Teens “consistently” and without prompting
19 blamed Instagram “for increases in the rate 0f anxiety and depression.” And though teens point t0
20 Instagram as a source 0f psychological harm, they often lack the self—control t0 use Instagram
21 less. According to Meta’s researchers, teens “often feel ‘addicted’ and know that What they’re
22 seeing is bad for their mental health but feel unable t0 stop themselves.“
23 8. Despite this extensive internal research—and the public outcry generated by its
24 disclosure—Meta has taken no meaningful steps to fix its harmful product 0r to warn Instagram’s
25 users 0r the public of its dangers. Instead, Meta only took steps it knew t0 be ineffective, t0
26 burnish its public image. Meta tested whether hiding “likes” on users’ content improved user
27
28 1
Id.
2
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
well-being, and found it did not. Meta nevertheless implemented the Change for n0 other reason
than to give the public impression that “Instagram cares about its users.” Likewise, Meta has
produced a series of Videos recommending daily affirmations that “I am in control 0f my
experience 0n Instagram”—When Meta knows teens are precisely not in control 0f their Instagram
use. By contrast, Meta declined t0 take steps that promised improvements t0 user well-being
because it feared the improved product would lose its grip on its target users. For example, when
researchers suggested “reduc[ing] exposure t0 celebrity content about fashion, beauty and
relationships, while increasing exposure t0 content from close friends,” the suggestion was
rej ected by executives arguing that Instagram, especially for teens, is “mostly about” comparing
10 oneself t0 the “very photogenic,” and that “competition” is the “fun part” of Instagram.2
11 9. Mariam is one 0f the young women with physical and mental vulnerability that
12 was harmed by Instagram in just the ways Meta’s researchers anticipated. Soon after starting to
13 use Instagram, she was hooked, injuring her self—image and self—esteem by a harmful barrage 0f
14 images and Videos that, among other things, affirmatively promoted eating disorders like
15 anorexia. Before her sixteenth birthday, Mariam was diagnosed by her physician with anorexia
16 and a host 0f associated mental and physical symptoms. Her extensive Instagram use caused her
17 anorexia nervosa to spiral out of control, and she was finding more and more ways and excuses t0
18 engage in her self—destructive behavior. Her illness left her on the brink of death several times;
19 she was once airlifted t0 a treatment facility out 0f state. She continues to struggle With these
20 conditions today. Mariam and her parents bring this action to recover for these injuries to
21 Mariam’s mental and physical health caused by a product which Meta knew t0 be defective and
22 dangerous t0 users like her.
23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action alleged in this
25 complaint pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10, and is a court of competent jurisdiction to grant
26 the relief requested. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the laws of the State of California, are not
27
28 2
Id.
3
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
preempted by federal law, d0 not challenge conduct Within any federal agency’s exclusive
domain, and are not statutorily assigned to any other trial court.
11. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each are
headquartered and have their principal place 0f business in the State 0f California, and have
continuous and systematic operations within the State of California.
12. This Court has also specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they
actively d0 business in Santa Clara County and the State 0f California. Defendants have
purposely availed themselves 0f the benefits, protections and privileges 0f the laws of the State of
California through the design, development, programming, manufacturing, promotion, marketing
10 and distribution of the products at issue and have purposely directed its activities toward this
11 state. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with this state to render the exercise of
12 jurisdiction by this Court permissible.
13 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant t0 Cal. Code CiV. Pro. §§ 395, 395.5
14 because this is the Superior Court for the county Where the injury occurred and Defendants’
15 liability arose.
16 III. PARTIES
17 14. Plaintiffs are residents 0f San Jose, California.
18 15. Before reaching the age 0f maj ority in December 2022, Mariam was a minor in the
19 custody and care 0f her parents, Neveen and Khaled.
20 16. Meta (from 2005 t0 2021 known as Facebook Inc.) is a multinational technology
21 company that designs, distributes, and promotes Instagram, among other applications.
22 17. Instagram LLC is a subsidiary of Meta that is Wholly owned and controlled by its
23 parent. T0 the extent the allegations in this complaint against Meta relate t0 the Instagram product
24 specifically, Plaintiffs reallege them in full against Instagram LLC as well.
25 IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
26 A. Instagram
27 18. Instagram is a social media application 0r “app.”
28
4
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19. Meta promotes Instagram as a “simple, fun & creative way to capture, edit & share
photos, Videos & messages With friends & family.”
20. Instagram has more than one billion monthly active users worldwide, and roughly
160 million users in the United States.
21. Most Instagram users, including Mariam, download, install, and run Instagram 0n
mobile devices like iPhones.
22. Instagram users use the app t0 View other users’ photos and Videos, and share their
photos and Videos With other users. These photos and Videos appear 0n other users’ Instagram
“feeds,” which are Virtually bottomless scrollable lists of content.
10 23. The presentation 0f content (photos, Videos, commentary, ads) that appears on
11 users’ Instagram feeds is generated by algorithms designed by Meta. Meta’s algorithms are not
12 based exclusively on user requests 0r inputs. Instead, the algorithms combine user-inputted
13 profile data With data collected by Meta t0 make assumptions and predictions about What Will
14 keep the user engaged, and then make specific recommendations. Meta’s design dictates the way
15 content is presented, such as its ranking and prioritization.3
16 24. Meta does not charge a fee to use Instagram. Instead, Meta makes money from
17 Instagram by collecting data on Instagram users, and deploying that data t0 serve its user-targeted
18 advertising.
19 25. Meta’s business model requires creating and maintaining high levels 0f user
20 “engagement” with its products—that is, keeping users on its apps for as long as possible as often
21 as possible. The more time users spend 0n its apps, the more advertising they see, and the more
22 money Meta makes.
23 26. Meta’s business model is quite lucrative. In 2019, Meta reported nearly $70 billion
24 in advertising revenues across all its advertising platforms. Instagram accounted for
25 approximately $20 billion 0f this total.
26
27
See Adam Mosseri, Shedding More Light 0n How Instagram Works, Instagram (June 8, 2021),
3
28
https://ab0ut.instagram.com/blog/announcements/shedding-more-1ight-on-how-instagram-works.
5
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27. Instagram is particularly popular among young people. More than 70 percent 0f
the app’s billion users are under the age 0f 35. More than 4O percent are under the age 0f 23. In
the United States, more than 70 percent 0f people aged 18 to 29 have active Instagram accounts.
About 22 million U.S. teenagers use Instagram daily.
28. Instagram’s popularity among young people is n0 accident. It is the result 0f
Meta’s deliberate efforts t0 target a young audience.
29. Reaching young audiences is a priority for advertisers and marketers. It is
therefore a priority for social media companies, like Meta, that sell advertising.
30. Meta sees Instagram as one of the keys to its ability to attract and retain young
10 audiences. According t0 a Meta presentation from 2019, “Instagram is well positioned t0 resonate
11 and Win with young people. There is a path to growth if Instagram can continue their
12 trajectory.”4
13 3 1. Meta acquired Instagram and its developer (then a two-year-old start-up company
14 with 13 employees and n0 revenue) for $1 billion in 2012. The acquisition was primarily
15 motivated by Meta’s intent to make up for declines in young users of its flagship social media
16 product, Facebook.
17 32. In a race against other social media apps for teenage users, Meta began adding
18 features to Instagram it thought were particularly likely t0 attract and retain such users. The net
19 result 0f these Changes for Instagram users was an overriding focus 0n attractive self—presentation
20 in comparison t0 others.
21 33. These additional features designed and promoted by Instagram included “filters”
22 that allowed users to edit their own images, support for Video posts, and tools for “touching up”
23 photos of faces.5
24
25
26
27
4
Wells er al., supra.
28 5
Id.
6
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
34. Believing that the surest way t0 maintain a teenage audience is t0 recruit a pre-
teenage audience, Meta has also targeted “tweens,” children between the ages of 10 and 12, as a
“valuable but untapped audience.”6
35. Meta has a written policy that Instagram users must be at least 13 years 01d. But
Meta has strong business incentives not to enforce the policy and, indeed, it is laxly enforced. In
the United States in 2020, more than 10 percent 0f children between the ages of 9 and 11 reported
using Instagram. In 2021, popular Instagram personality JoJo Siwa told Adam Mosseri, the Meta
executive in charge 0f Instagram, that she had been using Instagram since she was 8 years 01d,
that part 0f her Instagram audience is younger than 13, and that young children are attracted by
10 the kind 0f content Instagram’s algorithms presents t0 its users. Mosseri responded that he
11 “[didn’t] want to hear about it” and asserted that, because young users can “lie about your age
12 now,” Meta should design a version 0f Instagram specifically targeted t0 “kids?”
13 36. Instagram devastates the mental and physical health of many 0f its young users,
14 especially girls and young women like Mariam.
15 37. Instagram use is positively correlated with eating disorders and body dysmorphia,
16 according t0 recent independent literature reviews.8
17 38. According t0 young users themselves, Instagram use becomes an “obsession”
18 despite the fact that, “[e]very time I feel good about myself, I go over t0 Instagram, and then it all
19 goes away.” Using Instagram feels like a “kick in the gut.” Young users are relentlessly “pounded
20 with” content that undermines their self—image and self—worth “every time I go 0n Instagram.”9
21 39. According t0 Meta’s own researchers, Instagram “make[s] body image issues
22 worse for one in three teen girls.” One in five teens reported that Instagram “makes them feel
23
6
Georgia Wells & Jeff Horwitz, Facebook’s Efi’ort t0 Attract Preteens Goes Beyond Instagram
24 Kids, Documents Show, Wall
Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2021),
https://www.wsj .comfarticles/facebook-instagram-kids—tweens-attract-1 1632849667
25 7
Id.
8
26 Saul er al., Adolescent Eating Disorder Risk and the Social Online World: An Update, Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 0f North America 31, 167—77 (2022); Faelens et al., The
27 relationship between Instagram use and various indicators ofmental health, Computers in
Human Behavior Reports 4 (2021).
28 9
Wells er al., supra.
7
27090343
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
worse about themselves.” Roughly one in ten teen users reporting suicidal thoughts traced them t0
Instagram, as did two in five teen users who reported feeling “unattractive.” Teens “consistently”
and withoutprompting blamed Instagram “for increases in the rate 0f anxiety and depression?”
40. Also, according to Meta’s own researchers, young users are not capable of
controlling their Instagram use t0 protect their own health. Such users “often feel ‘addicted’ and
know that What they’re seeing is bad for their mental health but feel unable to stop themselves?“
41. Meta knew (0r should have known) about the risks 0f Instagram use in young
users because its own researchers uncovered and presented them to the company, as set forth
above.
10 42. In public, however, Meta has repeatedly denied these risks. Meta CEO Mark
11 Zuckerberg testified before Congress in 2021 that the “research that we’ve seen is that using
12 social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits.” Instagram
13 head Mosseri told reporters the same year that he had seen research suggesting Instagram’s effect
14 on young users’ mental health is “quite small?”
15 43. Instagram harms young users’ mental and physical health by a two-step
16 mechanism. First, it hooks and retains young users by offering an “obsessive” experience, Which
17 young users are incapable 0f controlling despite their desire to.
18 44. Like other addicting products, social media apps like Instagram hook their users by
19 disrupting their brains” reward circuitry.
20 45. Humans by nature seek out and derive pleasure from successful social interactions.
21 Experiencing a successful social interaction causes the release in the brain of a chemical called
22 dopamine, Which is a neurotransmitter that helps regulate feelings 0f pleasure and pain. When
23 dopamine is
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/26/2023 07:22 PM David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Valenzuela,Deputy Clerk 1 Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar No. 224457) lhazam@lchb.com 2 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 4 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 5 Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550) nroberts@protectuslaw.com 6 PROTECTUS LAW 1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000 7 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 810-1300 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi, Neveen 9 Radwan, and Khaled Fawzi 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 12 13 COORDINATION PROCEEDING Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 3.400] JCCP No. 5255 14 For Filing Purposes: 22STCV21355 IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT 15 ADDICTION (JCCP No. 5255) PETITION, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD- ON CASE, AND REQUEST FOR 16 COORDINATION 17 Judge: Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl SSC-12 18 [HEARING NOT REQUESTED] 19 [Filed concurrently [Proposed] Order] 20 21 Christina Arlington Smith, individually Los Angeles County Superior Court 22 and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Case No. 22STCV21355 Walton, Deceased, and Heriberto Arroyo, 23 individually and and as successor-in- interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo, 24 Deceased, and Christal Arroyo, Individually, Jessica Williams, individually 25 and as successor-in-interest to Zaiden 26 Baldwin, Deceased, 27 Plaintiffs, 28 v. 1 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 TikTok Inc., ByteDance, Inc., and Does 1- 2 100, Inclusive, Defendants. 3 4 D.S., K.R., and K.S. 5 Plaintiffs, 6 7 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV24332 8 TikTok Inc., ByteDance, Inc., and Does 1- 100, Inclusive, 9 Defendants. 10 11 J.P., R.P, and M.P., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV26778 14 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 15 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., 16 Defendants. 17 Janet Majewski, individually and as the 18 Personal Representative of the Estate of 19 Emily Zavala, 20 Plaintiffs, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV26829 21 v. 22 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 23 Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., 24 Defendants. 25 26 J.J., J.D., and A.D. 27 Plaintiffs, 28 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court 2 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 Case No. 22STCV8201 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 2 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., 3 4 Defendants. 5 M.L. and N.L., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Los Angeles County Superior Court v. Case No. 22STCV8204 8 TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc., 9 Defendants. 10 11 A.S. and E.S. 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202 14 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 15 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., Snap Inc., 16 Defendants. 17 L.W. and C.W. 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. Los Angeles County Superior Court 20 Case No. 22STCV28200 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 21 Facebook, Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc., 22 and ByteDance Inc., 23 Defendants. 24 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., 25 Plaintiffs, 26 v. Yolo County Superior Court 27 Case No. CV2022-1472 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 28 Facebook, Inc., YouTube, LLC, Google 3 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Inc., 2 Defendants. 3 K.L. and S.S., 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. San Bernardino County Superior Court 6 Case No. Pending 7 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc., 8 and ByteDance Inc., 9 Defendants. 10 11 TO THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. KUHL, COORDINATION TRIAL JUDGE: 12 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that after the initial Petition for Coordination in Social Media 13 Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 5255 (“JCCP 5255”), was granted on 14 December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs MARIAM FAWZI, NEVEEN RADWAN, and KHALED FAWZI, 15 (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned case, Fawzi et. al v. Meta Platforms Inc., et. al. (hereinafter, 16 “Fawzi” or “Add-On Case”), Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 22CV409251, on December 29, 17 2022, and is requesting coordination of Fawzi into JCCP 5255. Pursuant to Rule 3.544 of the 18 California Rules of Court, Plaintiff requests that this Add-On Case be coordinated into JCCP 5255, 19 solely for pre-trial purposes, along with the actions that are already the subject of this coordinated 20 proceeding. A true and correct copy of the Fawzi Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The 21 Summons and Complaint have been served. See Exhibit 2 (Proofs of Service). 22 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff is asserting a claim or claims for damages 23 generally relating to Social Media Cases. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 404, et seq., of the 24 California Code of Civil Procedure, this Add-On Case is eligible for statewide coordination and 25 inclusion in Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, now pending before the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl, 26 Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. 27 Plaintiff requests the coordination of this Add-On Case into JCCP 5255, pursuant to Code 28 4 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1, on the grounds that coordinating this Add-On Case 2 together with Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, before one judge, solely for pre-trial proceedings, 3 will promote the ends of justice. Sections 404.1 and 404.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure 4 set forth the standards that “apply to a decision whether to grant a request to coordinate an additional 5 action.” See Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 11 Cal. App. 5th 626, 634 (2017). Code of Civil 6 Procedure section 404.1 provides that: 7 [c]oordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will 8 promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, 9 witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of 10 the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation 11 should coordination be denied. 12 This Request is also made pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.544(c), which provides that 13 “[i]n deciding the request to coordinate [an add-on case], the court must consider the relative 14 development of the actions and the work product of counsel, in addition to any other relevant 15 matter.” 16 As preliminarily set forth in this Request, Plaintiff submits that these factors are met: 1 17 1. Whether common questions of law or fact predominate and are significant to the 18 litigation: Coordination of the above-captioned Add-On Case with Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, 19 before one judge, solely for pre-trial proceedings, will promote the ends of justice because this Add-On 20 case involves the same or similar allegations and named defendants as the cases in JCCP 5255. Plaintiff 21 in this Add-On Case, like the plaintiffs in the coordinated actions, is an individual who alleges the use 22 of defendants’ social media platforms and sustained serious injuries from such usage. Plaintiff in the 23 Add-On Case named the following entities as defendants in their Complaint: Meta Platforms, Inc. and 24 Instagram, LLC. Upon information and belief, Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC are also 25 defendants in the actions coordinated into JCCP 5255. Plaintiff alleges the following claims against 26 1 27 To the extent any Defendant opposes the coordination of this Add-On Case, Plaintiff reserves the right to submit points and authorities, together with supporting declarations and evidence, in further support of this 28 Request. 5 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 these Defendants: Strict Liability—Design Defect (all Defendants); Strict Liability—Failure To Warn 2 (all Defendants); Negligence (all Defendants); Fraudulent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all 3 Defendants); Negligent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all Defendants); Unfair Competition. On 4 information and belief, plaintiffs in the cases coordinated into JCCP 5255 allege similar claims. Not only 5 does this Add-On Case appear to share common questions of fact or law with the coordinated actions in 6 JCCP 5255, but these common questions appear to predominate over other individual questions. 7 Therefore coordination of this Add-On Case into JCCP 5255 would promote the ends of justice. 8 2. The convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel: Coordination of this Add-On Case 9 will promote the efficient use of judicial resources and convenience of all counsel by preventing the 10 duplication of effort by the parties, their counsel, witnesses, and the Court on discovery, discovery 11 disputes, and pre-trial adjudication of similar motions, such as pleadings challenges and summary 12 judgment/adjudication. 13 3. The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient 14 utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; and the calendar of the courts: The Petition to Coordinate 15 Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, was granted only recently on December 7, 2022. On December 29, 16 2022, the Chair of the Judicial Council of California issued an Order authorizing the Presiding Judge of 17 the Los Angeles Superior Court to assign a coordination trial judge to hear and determine JCCP 5255. 18 Then on January 5, 2023, the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl was assigned the Coordination Trial Judge for 19 Social Media Cases. No hearings have been held or are set in the coordinated proceeding since the 20 Petition for Coordination was granted, no case management orders have been entered, and no 21 coordinated discovery has commenced. 22 Similar to JCCP 5255, this Add-On Case is at the beginning of litigation. Fawzi was filed on 23 December 29, 2022 and has been designated to be complex under California Rule of Court, Rule 24 3.400. No initial status conference has been set, and no formal discovery has been exchanged. 25 Therefore, as JCCP 5255 and this Add-On Case are still at their initial stages, coordinating this 26 Add-On Case with the coordinated actions in Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, would be more efficient 27 for the courts, this Court, the parties, all counsel, and witnesses, and the Court, than denying coordination 28 and assigning this Add-On Case to a different court. Ultimately, coordination of this Add-On Case would 6 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 conserve the resources of the courts, all counsel, and the parties. Accordingly, the Court should grant 2 this Petition. 3 4. The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments: To the 4 extent the claims of the coordinated actions pending in JCCP 5255 and this Add-On Case are found to 5 be similar, with similarities predominating, there would be a significant advantage to the coordination 6 of the Add-On Case into JCCP 5255 to avoid duplicative and potentially inconsistent rulings, orders, 7 and judgments from the trial courts and potentially courts of appeal. 8 5. The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination 9 be denied: There appears to be a greater likelihood of reaching a resolution in the aggregate among 10 coordinated actions. 11 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and as the Add-On Case has been designated to be 12 complex under California Rule of Court, Rule 3.400, this Add-On Case is appropriate for coordination 13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1, and the Court should issue an order 14 coordinating this Add-On Case into JCCP No. 5255. 15 Plaintiff expressly qualifies this coordination request and states that this Request is intended 16 solely for pre-trial purposes only. Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 771 F.3d 1218, 1224– 17 25 (9th Cir. 2014). By this Petition, Notice of Potential Add-On Case, and Request for Coordination, 18 Plaintiff does not propose a joint trial of Plaintiff’s claims. Instead, Plaintiff expressly seeks to limit 19 this Request for coordination to pre-trial matters; this Request is intended solely for pre-trial 20 purposes. Through this Notice and Petition to Add-On, Plaintiff does not attempt nor acquiesce to 21 jointly try Plaintiff’s claims with any others’ claim(s). 22 If no party files or serves written notice opposing coordination of this action into JCCP 5255 23 within ten days of the date of service of this Petition as required by Rule 3.544 of the California 24 Rules of Court, Plaintiff further requests that this Petition be granted without a hearing and this Add- 25 On Case be deemed an included action in this coordinated proceeding. 26 A copy of this Petition will be submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council, and notice of 27 submission of this Petition will be served upon each party in this action and on all other parties to 28 the coordinated proceeding. 7 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 1 Proof of filing of a Notice of Submission of Notice of Potential Add-On Case and a copy of 2 this Petition pursuant to Rule 3.522 of the California Rules of Court, and any documents to be 3 submitted pursuant to Rule 3.523 of the California Rules of Court, will be submitted pursuant to and 4 within the time frames provided by Rules 3.522 and 3.523. 5 6 Dated: January 25, 2023 7 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 /s/ Lexi J. Hazam 10 Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar No. 224457) lhazam@lchb.com 11 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 12 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 13 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 14 Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550) nroberts@protectuslaw.com 15 PROTECTUS LAW 1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000 16 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 810-1300 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi, Neveen Radwan, 18 and Khaled Fawzi 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ADD-ON CASES FOR JCCP NO. 5255 EXHIBIT 1 E-FILED 12/29/2022 11:55 AM Lexi J. Hazam (State Bar N0. 224457) Clerk Of Court 1hazam@lchb.com Superior Court of CA, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP County Of Santa C|ara 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 220V409251 San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Reviewed By: L. Martinez Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 Neal A. Roberts (State Bar No. 48550) nroberts@protectuslaw.com PROTECTUS LAW 1025 Connecticut Ave NW Ste. 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 8 1 0- 1 300 Attorneysfor Plaintififv Mariam Fawzi, Neveen Radwan, and Khaled Fawzi 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 22CV409251 13 MARIAM FAWZI, NEVEEN RADWAN, Case N0. and KHALED FAWZI, 14 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND Plaintiffs, FOR JURY TRIAL 15 V. 1. Strict Liability—Design Defect (all 16 Defendants); META PLATFORMS INC. and 2. Strict Liability—Failure T0 Warn (all 17 INSTAGRAM LLC, Defendants); Defendants. Negligence (all Defendants); 18 Fraudulent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all Defendants); 19 Negligent Concealment and Nondisclosure (all Defendants); 20 Unfair Competition—(all Defendants). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 3 III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................ 4 IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................... 4 A. Instagram ................................................................................................................. 4 B. Mariam’s Instagram Use ....................................................................................... 12 V. CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................... 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY—DESIGN DEFECT (ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................................................................................... 14 10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY—FAILURE TO WARN (ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................................................................................... 1 5 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ..................................... 15 12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND NONDISCLOSURE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ................................................................... 16 13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT CONCEALMENT AND NONDISCLOSURE (ALL DEFENDANTS) ................................................................... 17 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION (ALL DEFENDANTS) .................... 17 15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 18 16 JURY DEMAND .......................................................................................................................... 19 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _ i _ 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs complain 0f Defendants as follows, based on their personal knowledge and 0n information and belief: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Mariam Fawzi (“Mariam”), together With her mother Neveen Radwan (“Neveen”) and her father Khaled Fawzi (“Khaled”), bring this action against Defendants Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”) and its subsidiary Instagram LLC for injuries caused by Defendants’ product Instagram to Mariam. 2. “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.” So said Meta’s own researchers of Instagram in an internal slide presentation in 2019. The presentation was part 10 0f a trove of documents leaked by former Meta employee Frances Haugen to journalists at the 11 Wall Street Journal and federal regulators in 2021. The Journal’s reporting 0n the documents 12 beginning in September 2021 caused a national and international uproar. 13 3. The documents confirmed What social scientists have long suspected: social media 14 products like Instagram can cause serious harm to the mental and physical health 0f young users, 15 especially t0 teenage girls like Mariam. Worse, this capacity for harm is not accidental but by 16 design: What makes Instagram a profitable enterprise for Meta is precisely what harms its young 17 users. 18 4. Instagram is popular in the United States and overseas, with roughly a billion 19 active monthly users worldwide and roughly 160 million users in the United States. It is 20 particularly popular among young people. About 22 million U.S. teenagers use Instagram daily. 21 Meta makes money from products like Instagram by using them as advertising platforms, offering 22 access t0 these vast and lucrative audiences t0 advertisers in exchange for roughly $70 billion in 23 annual advertising revenues in 2019. The success of this business model depends 0n Meta’s 24 ability to keep its users 0n its products (and thus exposed to its clients’ advertising) for as long 25 and as often as possible. 26 5. Instagram has numerous features designed t0 hook its users and maximize their 27 “engagement” With Instagram. These features exploit the natural human desire for social 28 interaction and the neurophysiology 0f the brain’s reward systems to keep users endlessly 1 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL scrolling, posting, “liking,” commenting, and counting the number 0f “likes” and comments t0 their own posts. Young users’ still-developing brains are particularly vulnerable t0 such exploitation. 6. Once young users are hooked, according t0 the “mental health deep dive” performed by Meta’s researchers using survey data as well as data generated by its products, “[a]spects of Instagram exacerbate each other to create a perfect storm” that endangers young users’ mental health. These aspects include specific design choices by Instagram, such as the “Explore” feature (Which “serves users photos and Videos curated by an algorithm” and “can send users deep into content that can be harmful”) and “selfie filters” (Which can “touch up” users’ 10 faces in their pictures), as well as patterns 0f common use that Instagram exploits through these 11 design choices (“[t]he tendency to share only the best moments” and “a pressure to 100k perfect”). 12 The researchers concluded that this “perfect storm” could contribute to eating disorders, 13 unhealthy body image, and depression among teens. 14 7. The researchers found that “[s]ocial comparison,” or peoples’ assessment 0f their 15 own value relative t0 that 0f others, is “worse on Instagram” for teens than 0n other social media 16 platforms. One in five teens reported that Instagram “makes them feel worse about themselves.” 17 Roughly two in five teen users reported feeling “unattractive,” while one in ten teen users 18 reporting suicidal thoughts traced them to Instagram. Teens “consistently” and without prompting 19 blamed Instagram “for increases in the rate 0f anxiety and depression.” And though teens point t0 20 Instagram as a source 0f psychological harm, they often lack the self—control t0 use Instagram 21 less. According to Meta’s researchers, teens “often feel ‘addicted’ and know that What they’re 22 seeing is bad for their mental health but feel unable t0 stop themselves.“ 23 8. Despite this extensive internal research—and the public outcry generated by its 24 disclosure—Meta has taken no meaningful steps to fix its harmful product 0r to warn Instagram’s 25 users 0r the public of its dangers. Instead, Meta only took steps it knew t0 be ineffective, t0 26 burnish its public image. Meta tested whether hiding “likes” on users’ content improved user 27 28 1 Id. 2 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL well-being, and found it did not. Meta nevertheless implemented the Change for n0 other reason than to give the public impression that “Instagram cares about its users.” Likewise, Meta has produced a series of Videos recommending daily affirmations that “I am in control 0f my experience 0n Instagram”—When Meta knows teens are precisely not in control 0f their Instagram use. By contrast, Meta declined t0 take steps that promised improvements t0 user well-being because it feared the improved product would lose its grip on its target users. For example, when researchers suggested “reduc[ing] exposure t0 celebrity content about fashion, beauty and relationships, while increasing exposure t0 content from close friends,” the suggestion was rej ected by executives arguing that Instagram, especially for teens, is “mostly about” comparing 10 oneself t0 the “very photogenic,” and that “competition” is the “fun part” of Instagram.2 11 9. Mariam is one 0f the young women with physical and mental vulnerability that 12 was harmed by Instagram in just the ways Meta’s researchers anticipated. Soon after starting to 13 use Instagram, she was hooked, injuring her self—image and self—esteem by a harmful barrage 0f 14 images and Videos that, among other things, affirmatively promoted eating disorders like 15 anorexia. Before her sixteenth birthday, Mariam was diagnosed by her physician with anorexia 16 and a host 0f associated mental and physical symptoms. Her extensive Instagram use caused her 17 anorexia nervosa to spiral out of control, and she was finding more and more ways and excuses t0 18 engage in her self—destructive behavior. Her illness left her on the brink of death several times; 19 she was once airlifted t0 a treatment facility out 0f state. She continues to struggle With these 20 conditions today. Mariam and her parents bring this action to recover for these injuries to 21 Mariam’s mental and physical health caused by a product which Meta knew t0 be defective and 22 dangerous t0 users like her. 23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 24 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action alleged in this 25 complaint pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10, and is a court of competent jurisdiction to grant 26 the relief requested. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the laws of the State of California, are not 27 28 2 Id. 3 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL preempted by federal law, d0 not challenge conduct Within any federal agency’s exclusive domain, and are not statutorily assigned to any other trial court. 11. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each are headquartered and have their principal place 0f business in the State 0f California, and have continuous and systematic operations within the State of California. 12. This Court has also specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they actively d0 business in Santa Clara County and the State 0f California. Defendants have purposely availed themselves 0f the benefits, protections and privileges 0f the laws of the State of California through the design, development, programming, manufacturing, promotion, marketing 10 and distribution of the products at issue and have purposely directed its activities toward this 11 state. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with this state to render the exercise of 12 jurisdiction by this Court permissible. 13 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant t0 Cal. Code CiV. Pro. §§ 395, 395.5 14 because this is the Superior Court for the county Where the injury occurred and Defendants’ 15 liability arose. 16 III. PARTIES 17 14. Plaintiffs are residents 0f San Jose, California. 18 15. Before reaching the age 0f maj ority in December 2022, Mariam was a minor in the 19 custody and care 0f her parents, Neveen and Khaled. 20 16. Meta (from 2005 t0 2021 known as Facebook Inc.) is a multinational technology 21 company that designs, distributes, and promotes Instagram, among other applications. 22 17. Instagram LLC is a subsidiary of Meta that is Wholly owned and controlled by its 23 parent. T0 the extent the allegations in this complaint against Meta relate t0 the Instagram product 24 specifically, Plaintiffs reallege them in full against Instagram LLC as well. 25 IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 26 A. Instagram 27 18. Instagram is a social media application 0r “app.” 28 4 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 19. Meta promotes Instagram as a “simple, fun & creative way to capture, edit & share photos, Videos & messages With friends & family.” 20. Instagram has more than one billion monthly active users worldwide, and roughly 160 million users in the United States. 21. Most Instagram users, including Mariam, download, install, and run Instagram 0n mobile devices like iPhones. 22. Instagram users use the app t0 View other users’ photos and Videos, and share their photos and Videos With other users. These photos and Videos appear 0n other users’ Instagram “feeds,” which are Virtually bottomless scrollable lists of content. 10 23. The presentation 0f content (photos, Videos, commentary, ads) that appears on 11 users’ Instagram feeds is generated by algorithms designed by Meta. Meta’s algorithms are not 12 based exclusively on user requests 0r inputs. Instead, the algorithms combine user-inputted 13 profile data With data collected by Meta t0 make assumptions and predictions about What Will 14 keep the user engaged, and then make specific recommendations. Meta’s design dictates the way 15 content is presented, such as its ranking and prioritization.3 16 24. Meta does not charge a fee to use Instagram. Instead, Meta makes money from 17 Instagram by collecting data on Instagram users, and deploying that data t0 serve its user-targeted 18 advertising. 19 25. Meta’s business model requires creating and maintaining high levels 0f user 20 “engagement” with its products—that is, keeping users on its apps for as long as possible as often 21 as possible. The more time users spend 0n its apps, the more advertising they see, and the more 22 money Meta makes. 23 26. Meta’s business model is quite lucrative. In 2019, Meta reported nearly $70 billion 24 in advertising revenues across all its advertising platforms. Instagram accounted for 25 approximately $20 billion 0f this total. 26 27 See Adam Mosseri, Shedding More Light 0n How Instagram Works, Instagram (June 8, 2021), 3 28 https://ab0ut.instagram.com/blog/announcements/shedding-more-1ight-on-how-instagram-works. 5 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27. Instagram is particularly popular among young people. More than 70 percent 0f the app’s billion users are under the age 0f 35. More than 4O percent are under the age 0f 23. In the United States, more than 70 percent 0f people aged 18 to 29 have active Instagram accounts. About 22 million U.S. teenagers use Instagram daily. 28. Instagram’s popularity among young people is n0 accident. It is the result 0f Meta’s deliberate efforts t0 target a young audience. 29. Reaching young audiences is a priority for advertisers and marketers. It is therefore a priority for social media companies, like Meta, that sell advertising. 30. Meta sees Instagram as one of the keys to its ability to attract and retain young 10 audiences. According t0 a Meta presentation from 2019, “Instagram is well positioned t0 resonate 11 and Win with young people. There is a path to growth if Instagram can continue their 12 trajectory.”4 13 3 1. Meta acquired Instagram and its developer (then a two-year-old start-up company 14 with 13 employees and n0 revenue) for $1 billion in 2012. The acquisition was primarily 15 motivated by Meta’s intent to make up for declines in young users of its flagship social media 16 product, Facebook. 17 32. In a race against other social media apps for teenage users, Meta began adding 18 features to Instagram it thought were particularly likely t0 attract and retain such users. The net 19 result 0f these Changes for Instagram users was an overriding focus 0n attractive self—presentation 20 in comparison t0 others. 21 33. These additional features designed and promoted by Instagram included “filters” 22 that allowed users to edit their own images, support for Video posts, and tools for “touching up” 23 photos of faces.5 24 25 26 27 4 Wells er al., supra. 28 5 Id. 6 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 34. Believing that the surest way t0 maintain a teenage audience is t0 recruit a pre- teenage audience, Meta has also targeted “tweens,” children between the ages of 10 and 12, as a “valuable but untapped audience.”6 35. Meta has a written policy that Instagram users must be at least 13 years 01d. But Meta has strong business incentives not to enforce the policy and, indeed, it is laxly enforced. In the United States in 2020, more than 10 percent 0f children between the ages of 9 and 11 reported using Instagram. In 2021, popular Instagram personality JoJo Siwa told Adam Mosseri, the Meta executive in charge 0f Instagram, that she had been using Instagram since she was 8 years 01d, that part 0f her Instagram audience is younger than 13, and that young children are attracted by 10 the kind 0f content Instagram’s algorithms presents t0 its users. Mosseri responded that he 11 “[didn’t] want to hear about it” and asserted that, because young users can “lie about your age 12 now,” Meta should design a version 0f Instagram specifically targeted t0 “kids?” 13 36. Instagram devastates the mental and physical health of many 0f its young users, 14 especially girls and young women like Mariam. 15 37. Instagram use is positively correlated with eating disorders and body dysmorphia, 16 according t0 recent independent literature reviews.8 17 38. According t0 young users themselves, Instagram use becomes an “obsession” 18 despite the fact that, “[e]very time I feel good about myself, I go over t0 Instagram, and then it all 19 goes away.” Using Instagram feels like a “kick in the gut.” Young users are relentlessly “pounded 20 with” content that undermines their self—image and self—worth “every time I go 0n Instagram.”9 21 39. According t0 Meta’s own researchers, Instagram “make[s] body image issues 22 worse for one in three teen girls.” One in five teens reported that Instagram “makes them feel 23 6 Georgia Wells & Jeff Horwitz, Facebook’s Efi’ort t0 Attract Preteens Goes Beyond Instagram 24 Kids, Documents Show, Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2021), https://www.wsj .comfarticles/facebook-instagram-kids—tweens-attract-1 1632849667 25 7 Id. 8 26 Saul er al., Adolescent Eating Disorder Risk and the Social Online World: An Update, Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 0f North America 31, 167—77 (2022); Faelens et al., The 27 relationship between Instagram use and various indicators ofmental health, Computers in Human Behavior Reports 4 (2021). 28 9 Wells er al., supra. 7 27090343 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL worse about themselves.” Roughly one in ten teen users reporting suicidal thoughts traced them t0 Instagram, as did two in five teen users who reported feeling “unattractive.” Teens “consistently” and withoutprompting blamed Instagram “for increases in the rate 0f anxiety and depression?” 40. Also, according to Meta’s own researchers, young users are not capable of controlling their Instagram use t0 protect their own health. Such users “often feel ‘addicted’ and know that What they’re seeing is bad for their mental health but feel unable to stop themselves?“ 41. Meta knew (0r should have known) about the risks 0f Instagram use in young users because its own researchers uncovered and presented them to the company, as set forth above. 10 42. In public, however, Meta has repeatedly denied these risks. Meta CEO Mark 11 Zuckerberg testified before Congress in 2021 that the “research that we’ve seen is that using 12 social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits.” Instagram 13 head Mosseri told reporters the same year that he had seen research suggesting Instagram’s effect 14 on young users’ mental health is “quite small?” 15 43. Instagram harms young users’ mental and physical health by a two-step 16 mechanism. First, it hooks and retains young users by offering an “obsessive” experience, Which 17 young users are incapable 0f controlling despite their desire to. 18 44. Like other addicting products, social media apps like Instagram hook their users by 19 disrupting their brains” reward circuitry. 20 45. Humans by nature seek out and derive pleasure from successful social interactions. 21 Experiencing a successful social interaction causes the release in the brain of a chemical called 22 dopamine, Which is a neurotransmitter that helps regulate feelings 0f pleasure and pain. When 23 dopamine is