Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/20/2022 07:10 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Guzman,Deputy Clerk
1
Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542
2 laura@socialmediavictims.org
SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER
3 1390 Market St, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94102
4
Telephone: (206) 294-1348
5 Facsimile: (206) 957-9549
6 Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080)
kloew@waterskraus.com
7
WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
8 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900
El Segundo, California 90245
9 Telephone: (310) 414-8146
Facsimile: (310) 414-8156
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14
15 CHRISTINA ARLINGTON SMITH, Case No.: 22STCV21355
individually and as successor-in-interest to
16 LALANI WALTON, Deceased, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF
HERIBERTO ARROYO, individually and as PETITION FOR COORDINATION
17 successor-in-interest to ARRIANI JAILEEN
18 ARROYO, Deceased, and CHRISTAL
ARROYO, Individually, JESSICA
19 WILLIAMS, individually and as successor-in-
interest to ZAIDEN BALDWIN,
20 Deceased.
21 Plaintiffs,
vs.
22
TIKTOK INC.; BYTEDANCE INC.; and
23 DOES 1 - 100, INCLUSIVE,
24
Defendants.
25
26 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
27 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on September 15, 2022, Plaintiffs and Petitioners
28 Christina Arlington Smith, individually and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Walton, Deceased,
1
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
1 and Heriberto Arroyo, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo,
2 Deceased, and Christal Arroyo, Individually, Jessica Williams, individually and as successor-in-
3 interest to Zaiden Baldwin, Deceased; D.S., K.R., and K.S.; J.P., R.P., and M.P.; Janet Majewski,
4 individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily Zavala; J.S., D.S., L.J.S.,
5
and L.H.S.; K.L. and S.S.; J.J., J.D., and A.D.; M.L. and N.L.; A.S. and E.S.; and L.W. and C.W.,
6
by and through their counsel, Laura Marquez-Garrett, Social Media Victims Law Center, 821
7
Second Avenue, Suite 2100, Seattle, WA 98104 and Kevin Loew of Waters, Kraus & Paul, 222
8
N. Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245, submitted to the Chairperson of the
9
Judicial Council a petition to coordinate the instant matter with the cases listed below pending the
10
Superior Courts of Los Angeles County, Yolo County, San Bernardino County, and San Mateo
11
County.
12
13 Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100,
Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30, 2022.
14
D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los
15 Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022.
16
J.P., R.P., and M.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., TikTok
17 Inc., ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26778, filed August
18, 2022.
18
Janet Majewski, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily
19 Zavala v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok
20 Inc., ByteDance, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26829, filed
August 18, 2022.
21
J.J., J.D., and A.D., v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok
22 Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28201, filed
23 August 30, 2022.
24 M.L. and N.L. v. TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
22STCV28204, filed August 30, 2022.
25
A.S. and E.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc;
26
ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202, filed
27 August 30, 2022.
28
2
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
1 L.W. and C.W. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.;
TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28200,
2 filed August 30, 2022.
3 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.;
YouTube, LLC; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance, Inc., Yolo Superior
4
Court Case No. CV2022.1472, filed August 26, 2022; and
5
K.L. and S.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.;
6 TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., San Bernadino Superior Court Case No. PENDING,
filed August 29, 2022.
7
8 The petition requests assignment of a judge to determine whether coordination of these
9 related actions is appropriate and, if so, to stay them until coordination is completed. Because no
10 party has previously expressed opposition to coordination, Petitioners did not request a hearing on
11
the petition as allowed by Rule 3.527(b) of the California Rules of Court. If any party does in fact
12
now oppose the petition to coordinate, then it should file its opposition promptly and request a
13
hearing date. A copy of the Petition and supporting documents (absent its exhibits) is attached as
14
Exhibit A.
15
DATED this 20TH day of September 2022.
16
SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER PLLC
17
18
By:
19 Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542
laura@socialmediavictims.org
20
1390 Market Street, Suite 200
21 San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (206) 294-1348
22
Matthew Bergman (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
23
matt@socialmediavictims.org
24 Glenn Draper (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
glenn@socialmediavictims.org
25 821 Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98104
26
Tel: (206) 741-4862 Fax: (206) 957-9549
27
28
3
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080)
1
kloew@waterskraus.com
2 WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900
3 El Segundo, California 90245
Tel: (310) 414-8146 Fax: (310) 414-8156
4
5 Christopher A. Seeger (Pro Hac Vice
anticipated)
6 cseeger@seegerweiss.com
Christopher Ayers (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
7
cayers@seegerweiss.com
8 SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
9 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Tel: 973-639-9100 Fax: 973-679-8656
10
11 Robert H. Klonoff (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
klonoff@usa.net
12 ROBERT KLONOFF, LLC
2425 S.W. 76th Ave.
13
Portland, Oregon 97225
14 Tel: (503) 702-0218 Fax: (503) 768-6671
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4
I, Claire M. Bothwell, declare as follows:
5
I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my business address
6 is 222 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245. I am employed in Los
Angeles County, California.
7
8 On September 20, 2022, I served a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SUBMISSION
OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION on interested parties in this action as follows:
9
[ XX ] By Regular Mail in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted below, with postage fully
10
prepaid and placing it for collection and mailing following the ordinary business practices of
11 WATERS, KRAUS & PAUL.
12 [ ] Electronic service via LexisNexis File & Serve on the recipients designated on the
Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website and mail service via
13
LexisNexis File & Serve on recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the
14 LexisNexis File & Serve website who are not set up to receive electronic services via LexisNexis
File & Serve.
15
[ XX ] By Email, to the recipients at the e-mail addresses as noted below, pursuant to CCP
16
section 1010.6(e)(1)
17
Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
18 Laura Kathryn O'Boyle Jacob T Spencer
19 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
20 New York, NY 10016 Washington, DC 20036
Email: loboyle@gibsondunn.com Email: jspencer@gibsondunn.com
21 Kristin A. Linsley Ashley Margaret Simonsen
22 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Covington and Burling LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 300 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
23 San Francisco, CA 94105 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Email: KLinsley@gibsondunn.com Email: asimonsen@cov.com
24
Rosemarie Theresa Ring Isaac Daniel Chaput
25 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Covington & Burling LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 Salesforce Tower
26 San Francisco, CA 94105 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
Email: rring@gibsondunn.com San Francisco, CA 94105
27
Email: ichaput@cov.com
28
5
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
1 Maria Georges Phyllis Alene Jones
Covington & Burling LLP Covington Burling LLP
2 One City Center One City Center
850 Tenth Street, NW 850 Tenth Street NW
3 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001
4 Email: mgeorges@cov.com Email: pajones@cov.com
5 Defendant Snap, Inc.
Jonathan Hugh Blavin Ariel Tal Teshuva
6
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
7 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 Los Angeles, CA 90071
8 Email: jonathan.blavin@mto.com Email: Ariel.Teshuva@mto.com
Laura Maria Lopez Rose Leda Ehler
9
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
10 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90071
11 Email: laura.lopez@mto.com Email: Rose.Ehler@mto.com
12 Lauren Bell
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
13 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Suite 500 E
14 Washington D.C. 20001
15 Email: Lauren.Bell@mto.com
16 Defendants TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc.
Albert Quoc Giang David Paul Mattern
17 King & Spalding LLP King & Spalding LLP
18 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Washington, DC 20006
19 Email: agiang@kslaw.com Email: dmattern@kslaw.com
Geoffrey Drake
20
King & Spalding LLP
21 1180 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30309
22 Email: gdrake@kslaw.com
23
Defendants Google LLC, YouTube, LLC and Alphabet Inc.
24 Christopher Chiou
Wilson Sonsini
25 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
26 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: cchiou@wsgr.com
27
28
6
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
1
foregoing is true and correct.
2
Executed on September 20, 2022, at El Segundo, California.
3
4
5 _____________________________
CLAIRE M. BOTHWELL
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
EXHIBIT “A”
D.S., K.R., and K.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court
1
Case No. 22STCV 24332
2 Plaintiffs,
v.
3
TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 -
4 100, Inclusive,
5
Defendants.
6
J.P., R.P., and M.P., Los Angeles County Superior Court
7 Case No. 22STCV 26778
Plaintiffs,
8 v.
9
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
10 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance
Inc.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Los Angeles County Superior Court
Personal Representative of the Estate of Case No. 22STCV 26829
14 Emily Zavala,
15 Plaintiffs,
v.
16
17 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc.,
18 ByteDance Inc.,
19 Defendants.
20
J.J., J.D., and A.D., Los Angeles County Superior Court
21 Case No. 22STCV28201
Plaintiffs,
22 v.
23 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance
24
Inc.,
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 2
DESIGNATION
M.L. and N.L., Los Angeles County Superior Court
1
Case No. 22STCV28204
2 Plaintiffs,
v.
3
TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc.,
4
5 Defendants.
6 A.S. and E.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV28202
7 Plaintiffs,
v.
8 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
9 Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance
Inc.; Snap Inc.,
10
Defendants.
11
L.W. and C.W., Los Angeles County Superior Court
12
Case No. 22STCV28200
13 Plaintiffs,
v.
14
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
15 Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and
16 ByteDance Inc.,
17 Defendants.
18 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., Yolo County Superior Court
Case No. CV2022-1472
19 Plaintiffs,
v.
20
21 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; YouTube, LLC; Google
22 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance
Inc.,
23
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 3
DESIGNATION
1
K.L. and S.S., San Bernadino County Superior Court
Case No. Pending
2 Plaintiffs,
3 v.
4 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and
5
ByteDance Inc.,
6
Defendants.
7
8
9 APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND PETITION FOR
10 COORDINATION
11 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 404,
12 et seq., and California Rules of Court 3.500, et seq., Plaintiffs and Petitioners Christina Arlington
13 Smith, individually and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Walton, Deceased, and Heriberto
14 Arroyo, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo, Deceased, and Christal
15 Arroyo, Individually, Jessica Williams, individually and as successor-in-interest to Zaiden
16 Baldwin, Deceased, D.S., K.R., and K.S., J.P., R.P., and M.P, Janet Majewski, individually and as
17 the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily Zavala, J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., K.L. and
18 S.S., J.J., J.D., and A.D., M.L. and N.L., A.S. and E.S., and L.W. and C.W., by and through their
19 counsel, Laura Marquez-Garrett, Social Media Victims Law Center, 821 Second Avenue, Suite
20 2100, Seattle, WA 98104 and Kevin Loew of Waters, Kraus & Paul, 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy,
21
Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245, respectfully submit this Application for Complex Designation
22
and Petition for Coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council to coordinate the actions listed
23
below.
24
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any written opposition or response to the herein
25
Application and Petition must be filed and served at least nine (9) court days before the hearing
26
date set on this Application and Petition. A hearing on this Application and Petition for
27
coordination is hereby requested.
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 4
DESIGNATION
1 This Petition for Coordination (the “Petition”) is made pursuant to Section 404 of the
2 California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and California Rules of Court 3.521 (“CRC”). The
3 actions sought to be coordinated fall within the definition of “complex litigation” under Section
4 19 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and Rule 3.400 et seq., of the CRC. Petitioners urge
5
coordination of these ten cases before a single judge in the Superior Court for the County of Los
6
Angles and will promote the ends of justice for the following reasons:
7
1. This Petition is brought on behalf of ten parents whose children suffered injury or
8
death from social media addiction, sexual exploitation or abuse sustained though their use of
9
Defendants’ social media products. Social media litigation has been recognized as the newest
10
emerging mass tort and the undersigned law firm represents over 100 California parents who
11
intend to file in California state court in the upcoming months on behalf of their injured children.
12
2. These ten mass tort cases involve minors who sustained physical harm, mental
13
health injury and death as a result of Defendants’ defective and unreasonably dangerous social
14
media products. Workup of these cases for trial will require depositions of over 20 corporate
15
personnel, 15 experts and 25 lay witnesses; retrieval of at least 50,000 documents and electronic
16
records; elaborate electronic discovery protocols; deposition of dozens of expert witness and
17
extensive motion practice. Based upon these factors, the mass tort cases meet the criteria for
18
complex designation under California Rule of Court 3.400(b).
19
3. These ten cases share predominant issues of law and fact including whether
20
common features on defendant’s social media products are unreasonably dangerous to minor
21
users; the impact of excessive social media use on adolescent brain development and mental
22
health; Defendants’ knowledge of hazards in their social media products; Plaintiffs’ entitlement
23
to injunctive relief under California Unfair Competition Law Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 and
24
whether Defendants enjoy statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications
25
Decency Act.
26
4. Individualized trial workup of these ten cases will each involve deposition
27
testimony from mostly the same corporate personnel lay and expert witnesses; retrieval and
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 5
DESIGNATION
1 review of mostly the same documents and electronic records and raise similar issues of relevancy
2 and privilege. While the parties will work cooperatively on discovery, Court assistance will
3 inevitably be required to help the parties define the appropriate scope and timing of discovery,
4 issue protective orders and electronic discovery protocols and adjudicate issues of privilege.
5 Coordination will eliminate the inconvenience to witnesses of sitting through duplicative
6 depositions, benefit the parties by eliminating wasteful duplication and permit discovery to
7 proceed in on order and logical sequence. Coordination will conserve judicial resources by
8 eliminating the need for multiple courts to adjudicate on the same discovery issues while
9 providing the parties with clear guidance through a single set of discovery rulings and protocols
10 applicable to all cases.
11 5. Social media product liability litigation is an emerging tort and preparation these
12 cases for trial will involve extensive motion practice on issues such as Defendants’ entitlement to
13 statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; scope of permissible
14 discovery; expert challenges to plaintiff and defense experts; and standard of proof on general
15 and specific causation. Given the emerging nature of this litigation and the paucity of clear
16 controlling appellate authority on many of these issues, absent coordination duplicative and
17 inconsistent judicial rulings are inevitable.
18 6. All the cases for which consolidation is sought have been filed in the past three
19 months, no defendant has filed an answer or dispositive pleading, no discovery has been
20 propounded and no substantive rulings have been entered. Coordination at this early stage of the
21 litigation will permit the coordinating judge to establish uniform deadlines for responsive
22 pleadings, adopt an orderly discovery schedule tailored to the unique factual and legal issues in
23 these cases, schedule the briefing and argument of dispositive motions and set cases for trial.
24 This will foster a more efficient utilization of court facilities and judicial resources.
25 7. At this early stage in the litigation with so many unresolved factual and legal
26 questions, it is difficult to assess the realistic prospect of settlement. However, experience in
27 other complex mass torts teaches that settlement is almost always premised on individual cases
28 being consolidated through state-court coordinated proceeding, a federal MDL or class action.
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 6
DESIGNATION
1 To the extent that settlement of these cases are possible, coordination will enable the parties and
2 the Court to take a more global approach to resolution and focus their attention on the issues
3 most salient to settlement.
4 8. Petitioners respectfully request that Los Angeles Superior Court Complex
5
Division be assigned to determine coordination of these actions and if the cases are coordinated,
6
they proceed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Most of the cases subject to this Petition
7
are pending in Los Angeles County and Defendants Snap, Inc. and TikTok are headquartered
8
there. Los Angeles also has regular direct flights to China, Israel and India where many current
9
and former company witnesses are located and dozens of daily flights to the Bay Area where
10
Defendants Meta and ByteDance are located.
11
Petitioners seek to coordinate the cases listed below as well as similar cases filed in and to
12
be filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court:
13
14 Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100,
Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30, 2022.
15
D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los
16 Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022.
17
J.P., R.P., and M.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., TikTok
18 Inc., ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26778, filed August
18, 2022.
19
Janet Majewski, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily
20
Zavala v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok
21 Inc., ByteDance, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26829, filed
August 18, 2022.
22
J.J., J.D., and A.D., v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok
23 Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28201, filed
24 August 30, 2022.
25 M.L. and N.L. v. TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
22STCV28204, filed August 30, 2022.
26
27 A.S. and E.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc;
ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202, filed
28 August 30, 2022.
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 7
DESIGNATION
1 L.W. and C.W. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.;
TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28200,
2 filed August 30, 2022.
3 Petitioners also seek to coordinate these cases with the following similar cases filed by the
4 undersigned law firm elsewhere in the State of California.
5 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.;
6 YouTube, LLC; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance, Inc., Yolo Superior
Court Case No. CV2022.1472, filed August 26, 2022; and
7
K.L. and S.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.;
8 TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., San Bernadino Superior Court Case No. PENDING,
9 filed August 29, 2022.
10 Petitioners are aware of one similar action filed in the State of California by another law
11
firm:
12
Dowdy vs. Instagram LLC, et al San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-03588 filed
13 Sep. 2, 2022.
14 Petitioners’ grounds for complex designation and coordination are more particularly set
15 forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Laura
16 Marquez-Garrett, and other supporting document submitted herewith.
17 Proof of filing in each included action of a Notice of Application for Complex Designation
18
and Submission of Petition for Coordination and a copy of this Application and Petition pursuant
19
to Rule 3.522 of the CRC, and any documents to be submitted pursuant to Rule 3.523 of the CRC
20
will be submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council within the time frames provided by Rule
21
3.522 and 3.523.
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 8
DESIGNATION
1 DATED this 15TH day of September 2022.
2
SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER PLLC
3
4 By:
Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542
5
laura@socialmediavictims.org
6 1390 Market Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94102
7 Tel: (206) 294-1348
8
Matthew Bergman (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
9 matt@socialmediavictims.org
Glenn Draper (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
10 glenn@socialmediavictims.org
821 Second Avenue, Suite 2100
11
Seattle, WA 98104
12 Tel: (206) 741-4862 Fax: (206) 957-9549
13 Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080)
kloew@waterskraus.com
14
WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
15 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900
El Segundo, California 90245
16 Tel: (310) 414-8146 Fax: (310) 414-8156
17
Christopher A. Seeger (Pro Hac Vice
18 anticipated)
cseeger@seegerweiss.com
19 Christopher Ayers (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
cayers@seegerweiss.com
20
SEEGER WEISS LLP
21 55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
22 Tel: 973-639-9100 Fax: 973-679-8656
23
Robert H. Klonoff (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
24 klonoff@usa.net
ROBERT KLONOFF, LLC
25 2425 S.W. 76th Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97225
26
Tel: (503) 702-0218 Fax: (503) 768-6671
27
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
28
PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 9
DESIGNATION
D.S., K.R., and K.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court
1
Case No. 22STCV 24332
2 Plaintiffs,
v.
3
TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 -
4 100, Inclusive,
5
Defendants.
6
J.P., R.P., and M.P., Los Angeles County Superior Court
7 Case No. 22STCV 26778
Plaintiffs,
8 v.
9
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
10 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance,
Inc.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Los Angeles County Superior Court
Personal Representative of the Estate of Case No. 22STCV 26829
14 Emily Zavala,
15 Plaintiffs,
v.
16
17 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc.,
18 ByteDance, Inc.,
19 Defendants.
20
J.J., J.D., and A.D., Los Angeles County Superior Court
21 Case No. 22STCV28201
Plaintiffs,
22 v.
23 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance
24
Inc.,
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 2
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
M.L. and N.L., Los Angeles County Superior Court
1
Case No. 22STCV28204
2 Plaintiffs,
v.
3
TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc.,
4
5 Defendants.
6 A.S. and E.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCV28202
7 Plaintiffs,
v.
8 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
9 Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance
Inc.; Snap Inc.,
10
Defendants.
11
L.W. and C.W., Los Angeles County Superior Court
12
Case No. 22STCV28200
13 Plaintiffs,
v.
14
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
15 Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and
16 ByteDance Inc.,
17 Defendants.
18 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., Yolo County Superior Court
Case No. CV2022-1472
19 Plaintiffs,
v.
20
21 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; YouTube, LLC; Google
22 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance
Inc.,
23
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 3
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
1
K.L. and S.S., San Bernadino County Superior Court
Case No. Pending
2 Plaintiffs,
3 v.
4 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and
5
ByteDance Inc.,
6
Defendants.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 4
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
4
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2
5
A. Social Media and the Youth Mental Health Crisis ......................................................... 2
6
B. Social Media Victims Law Center .................................................................................. 3
7
C. Case Summaries .............................................................................................................. 4
8
III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
9
A. Complex Case Designation is Warranted ....................................................................... 7
10
B. Coordination Warranted Under California Code of Civil Procedure 404 and Serves the
11
Interests of Justice ................................................................................................................... 8
12
C. Los Angeles County Superior Court is the Appropriate Venue for Coordinated
13
Proceedings. .......................................................................................................................... 16
14
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND FOR i
COORDINATION
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
Cases
4
Citicorp North Am., Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
5
(1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 563 .....................................................................................................8
6
Ford Motor Warranty Cases,
7 11 Cal.App.5th 626 (2017) ..........................................................................................10, 11, 13
8 Isaak v. Superior Court,
9 73 Cal.App.5th 792 (2022) ......................................................................................................10
10 McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court,
11 Cal.App.4th 804 (1992) ......................................................................................9, 13, 14, 15
11
Statutes
12
28 U.S.C. § 1407 ..............................................................................................................................8
13
14 California Code of Civil Procedure 404 ..........................................................................................8
15 Communications Decency Act Section 230 ..............................................................................1, 14
16 California Rule of Court 3.400(a) ....................................................................................................7
17 California Rule of Court 3.400(b) ....................................................................................................8
18
California Rule of Court 3.400(c) ............................................................................................1, 2, 8
19
Rules of Procedure Rule 6.2 ............................................................................................................8
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX ii
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to confer complex case designations on eleven
3 product liability cases involving children injured or killed through social media use pursuant to
4 California Rule of Court 3.400(c) and to coordinate these cases currently pending in four California
5 counties in Los Angeles County pursuant to CCP § 404.
6 All eleven cases allege that as designed and developed by Defendants Meta Platforms Inc.
7 (“Meta”), Snap, Inc. (“Snap”), and TikTok Inc. ByteDance Inc. (collectively, “TikTok”) the
8 Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok products, respectively, are unreasonably dangerous
9 to users, particularly to children and teens (under the age of 18); that Defendants failed to warn
10 minors and their parents about the risks posed by the products; and that the products contained
11 design defects as developed by Defendants. Among the harms alleged are that Defendants’
12 products were designed to and did addict young users to Defendants’ products and that Defendants
13 designed and programmed their products to identify for and direct minors to unwanted and
14 psychologically harmful content; designed products that encouraged and facilitated unsolicited
15 contacts from adult predators and the exchange of explicit and illegal sexual images, as well as
16 exploitation and abuse of minor users; failed to limit minor users’ screen time to healthy amounts
17 and affirmatively designed and operated their products to encourage and manipulate users into
18 spending harmful and dangerous amounts of time using those products; and failed to warn minors
19 (and their parents) of foreseeable harms arising from anticipated use of their social media products.
20 Defendants all claim immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
21 and allege that their products are protected by the First Amendment.
22 Litigation of these mass tort cases will involve extensive motion practice involving
23 complex legal issues, wide ranging discovery of terabytes of electronically stored data, and
24 depositions of numerous corporate, lay, and expert witnesses.
25 Coordination of these eleven cases will promote judicial efficiency and economy by
26 providing for the unified management of both pretrial and trial phases of these cases. Despite
27 individual differences between cases and several different social media defendants, common issues
28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND FOR 1
COORDINATION
1 of fact and law predominate, and coordination of discovery and motions practice would maximize
2 efficiency and conserve judicial resources. Social media product liability litigation is a newly
3 emerging mass tort with a paucity of appellate authority. Coordination would therefore avoid
4 duplication judicial effort on the many complex legal issues that will be presented throughout the
5
litigation of these cases and avoid the prospect of inconsistent rulings.
6
All eleven cases qualify for complex status under California Rule of Court 3.400(c) and
7
coordination is amply warranted under CCP § 404 and will manifestly serve the interests of justice.
8
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9
A. Social Media and the Youth Mental Health Crisis
10
Social media use has become increasingly common in daily life, used by billions of people
11
on a regular basis. While all age groups have a percentage of active social media users, not all of
12
these cohorts use social media in the same way or to the same extent. A Pew Research
13
Center report showed that 84 percent of American adults aged 18 to 29 use some form of social
14
media. Among teenagers, social media usage is estimated at being over 90 percent.
15
Minors also are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of social media as they are
16
still in their developmental years. In his 2021 Protecting Youth Mental Health advisory, the U.S.
17
Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, MD, warned the American public of a mental health crises
18
among young adults caused in part by their overuse of social media. He cited several studies about
19
20 the harms of social media, many of which “argue that digital technologies can […] lead to
1
21 depression, anxiety, and self-harm.”
22 Surgeon General Murthy reported that between 2009 to 2019, the proportion of high school
23 students reporting persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness increased by 40 percent; those
24 seriously considering attempting suicide increased by 36 percent; and those creating a suicide plan
25 increased by 44 percent. Between 2011 and 2015, youth psychiatric visits to emergency
26
27
28 1
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-youth-mental-health-advisory.pdf
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 2
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
1 departments for depression, anxiety, and behavioral challenges increased by 28 percent. 2
2 Moreover,
3
Between 2007 and 2018, suicide rates among youth ages 10-24 in the U.S.
4 increased by 57 percent. Early estimates from the National Center for
Health Statistics suggest there were tragically more than 6,600 deaths by
5 suicide among the 10-24 age group in 2020 . . . In early 2021, emergency
department visits in the United States for suspected suicide attempts were
6 51 % higher for adolescent girls and 4% percent higher for adolescent boys
compared to the same time period in early 2019.3
7
The Surgeon General identified social media as a major factor in this youth mental crisis
8
and called on companies to take greater responsibility in designing safer products,
9
In these digital public spaces, which privately owned and tend to be run for profit,
10 there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s
11 best for the individual user or for society. Business models are often built around
maximizing user engagement as opposed to safeguarding users’ health and ensuring
12 that users engage with one another in safe and healthy ways. This translates to
technology companies focusing on maximizing time spent, not time well spent. 4
13
B. Social Media Victims Law Center
14
The Social Media Victims Law Center (SMVLC) was established in late 2021 in response
15
to Surgeon General Murthy’s advisory, Congressional testimony from former Meta employee
16
Frances Haugen describing the social media companies’ knowledge of the harms their products
17
were inflicting on young people and leaked internal Meta documents published in the Wall Street
18
Journal. SMVLC seeks to apply traditional product liability concepts to hold social media
19
20 companies legally accountable for alleged design defects in their platforms that cause harm to kids.
21 SMVLC represents several parents throughout the United States whose children have died,
22 suffered severe mental health injuries, and/or been sexually abused through their addictive and
23 harmful use of social media. SMVLC has filed twenty-two cases in federal court and ten actions
24 in California State Court, which are subject to this Petition.
25
26 2
Id. at p. 8.
27 3
Id. at p. 8-9.
28 4
Id. at p. 25.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 3
DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION
1 C. Case Summaries
2 Petitioners seek to coordinate the cases listed below as well as similar cases filed in and to
3 be filed in the State of California that constitute the subject of the herein petition.
4
1. Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100,
5 Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30,
2022.
6
Nature of Case. Wrongful death and survivorship action brought by four parents arising
7
out of the death of three children (ages 8, 9, and 12), where all three children died as the
8 result of self-strangulation while performing the viral TikTok Blackout Challenge.
9 Named Defendants. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc.
10 Claims. Strict Product Liability (design defect and failure to warn), Negligence, and
Unfair Business Practice.
11
12 Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Social Media Victims Law Center.
13 2. D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive,
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/20/2022 07:10 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Guzman,Deputy Clerk 1 Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542 2 laura@socialmediavictims.org SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER 3 1390 Market St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 4 Telephone: (206) 294-1348 5 Facsimile: (206) 957-9549 6 Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080) kloew@waterskraus.com 7 WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 8 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900 El Segundo, California 90245 9 Telephone: (310) 414-8146 Facsimile: (310) 414-8156 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 15 CHRISTINA ARLINGTON SMITH, Case No.: 22STCV21355 individually and as successor-in-interest to 16 LALANI WALTON, Deceased, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF HERIBERTO ARROYO, individually and as PETITION FOR COORDINATION 17 successor-in-interest to ARRIANI JAILEEN 18 ARROYO, Deceased, and CHRISTAL ARROYO, Individually, JESSICA 19 WILLIAMS, individually and as successor-in- interest to ZAIDEN BALDWIN, 20 Deceased. 21 Plaintiffs, vs. 22 TIKTOK INC.; BYTEDANCE INC.; and 23 DOES 1 - 100, INCLUSIVE, 24 Defendants. 25 26 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY: 27 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on September 15, 2022, Plaintiffs and Petitioners 28 Christina Arlington Smith, individually and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Walton, Deceased, 1 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 and Heriberto Arroyo, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo, 2 Deceased, and Christal Arroyo, Individually, Jessica Williams, individually and as successor-in- 3 interest to Zaiden Baldwin, Deceased; D.S., K.R., and K.S.; J.P., R.P., and M.P.; Janet Majewski, 4 individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily Zavala; J.S., D.S., L.J.S., 5 and L.H.S.; K.L. and S.S.; J.J., J.D., and A.D.; M.L. and N.L.; A.S. and E.S.; and L.W. and C.W., 6 by and through their counsel, Laura Marquez-Garrett, Social Media Victims Law Center, 821 7 Second Avenue, Suite 2100, Seattle, WA 98104 and Kevin Loew of Waters, Kraus & Paul, 222 8 N. Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245, submitted to the Chairperson of the 9 Judicial Council a petition to coordinate the instant matter with the cases listed below pending the 10 Superior Courts of Los Angeles County, Yolo County, San Bernardino County, and San Mateo 11 County. 12 13 Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30, 2022. 14 D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los 15 Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022. 16 J.P., R.P., and M.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., TikTok 17 Inc., ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26778, filed August 18, 2022. 18 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily 19 Zavala v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok 20 Inc., ByteDance, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26829, filed August 18, 2022. 21 J.J., J.D., and A.D., v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok 22 Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28201, filed 23 August 30, 2022. 24 M.L. and N.L. v. TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28204, filed August 30, 2022. 25 A.S. and E.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; 26 ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202, filed 27 August 30, 2022. 28 2 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 L.W. and C.W. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28200, 2 filed August 30, 2022. 3 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; YouTube, LLC; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance, Inc., Yolo Superior 4 Court Case No. CV2022.1472, filed August 26, 2022; and 5 K.L. and S.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; 6 TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., San Bernadino Superior Court Case No. PENDING, filed August 29, 2022. 7 8 The petition requests assignment of a judge to determine whether coordination of these 9 related actions is appropriate and, if so, to stay them until coordination is completed. Because no 10 party has previously expressed opposition to coordination, Petitioners did not request a hearing on 11 the petition as allowed by Rule 3.527(b) of the California Rules of Court. If any party does in fact 12 now oppose the petition to coordinate, then it should file its opposition promptly and request a 13 hearing date. A copy of the Petition and supporting documents (absent its exhibits) is attached as 14 Exhibit A. 15 DATED this 20TH day of September 2022. 16 SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER PLLC 17 18 By: 19 Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542 laura@socialmediavictims.org 20 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 21 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (206) 294-1348 22 Matthew Bergman (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 23 matt@socialmediavictims.org 24 Glenn Draper (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) glenn@socialmediavictims.org 25 821 Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 26 Tel: (206) 741-4862 Fax: (206) 957-9549 27 28 3 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080) 1 kloew@waterskraus.com 2 WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900 3 El Segundo, California 90245 Tel: (310) 414-8146 Fax: (310) 414-8156 4 5 Christopher A. Seeger (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 6 cseeger@seegerweiss.com Christopher Ayers (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 7 cayers@seegerweiss.com 8 SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 9 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Tel: 973-639-9100 Fax: 973-679-8656 10 11 Robert H. Klonoff (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) klonoff@usa.net 12 ROBERT KLONOFF, LLC 2425 S.W. 76th Ave. 13 Portland, Oregon 97225 14 Tel: (503) 702-0218 Fax: (503) 768-6671 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss: 3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 I, Claire M. Bothwell, declare as follows: 5 I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my business address 6 is 222 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245. I am employed in Los Angeles County, California. 7 8 On September 20, 2022, I served a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION on interested parties in this action as follows: 9 [ XX ] By Regular Mail in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted below, with postage fully 10 prepaid and placing it for collection and mailing following the ordinary business practices of 11 WATERS, KRAUS & PAUL. 12 [ ] Electronic service via LexisNexis File & Serve on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website and mail service via 13 LexisNexis File & Serve on recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the 14 LexisNexis File & Serve website who are not set up to receive electronic services via LexisNexis File & Serve. 15 [ XX ] By Email, to the recipients at the e-mail addresses as noted below, pursuant to CCP 16 section 1010.6(e)(1) 17 Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. 18 Laura Kathryn O'Boyle Jacob T Spencer 19 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW 20 New York, NY 10016 Washington, DC 20036 Email: loboyle@gibsondunn.com Email: jspencer@gibsondunn.com 21 Kristin A. Linsley Ashley Margaret Simonsen 22 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Covington and Burling LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 300 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500 23 San Francisco, CA 94105 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: KLinsley@gibsondunn.com Email: asimonsen@cov.com 24 Rosemarie Theresa Ring Isaac Daniel Chaput 25 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Covington & Burling LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 Salesforce Tower 26 San Francisco, CA 94105 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 Email: rring@gibsondunn.com San Francisco, CA 94105 27 Email: ichaput@cov.com 28 5 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 Maria Georges Phyllis Alene Jones Covington & Burling LLP Covington Burling LLP 2 One City Center One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW 850 Tenth Street NW 3 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001 4 Email: mgeorges@cov.com Email: pajones@cov.com 5 Defendant Snap, Inc. Jonathan Hugh Blavin Ariel Tal Teshuva 6 Munger Tolles & Olson LLP Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 7 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Los Angeles, CA 90071 8 Email: jonathan.blavin@mto.com Email: Ariel.Teshuva@mto.com Laura Maria Lopez Rose Leda Ehler 9 Munger Tolles & Olson LLP Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 10 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90071 11 Email: laura.lopez@mto.com Email: Rose.Ehler@mto.com 12 Lauren Bell Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 13 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500 E 14 Washington D.C. 20001 15 Email: Lauren.Bell@mto.com 16 Defendants TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc. Albert Quoc Giang David Paul Mattern 17 King & Spalding LLP King & Spalding LLP 18 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW Los Angeles, CA 90071 Washington, DC 20006 19 Email: agiang@kslaw.com Email: dmattern@kslaw.com Geoffrey Drake 20 King & Spalding LLP 21 1180 Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309 22 Email: gdrake@kslaw.com 23 Defendants Google LLC, YouTube, LLC and Alphabet Inc. 24 Christopher Chiou Wilson Sonsini 25 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 26 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: cchiou@wsgr.com 27 28 6 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 1 foregoing is true and correct. 2 Executed on September 20, 2022, at El Segundo, California. 3 4 5 _____________________________ CLAIRE M. BOTHWELL 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION EXHIBIT “A” D.S., K.R., and K.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court 1 Case No. 22STCV 24332 2 Plaintiffs, v. 3 TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 4 100, Inclusive, 5 Defendants. 6 J.P., R.P., and M.P., Los Angeles County Superior Court 7 Case No. 22STCV 26778 Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 10 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Los Angeles County Superior Court Personal Representative of the Estate of Case No. 22STCV 26829 14 Emily Zavala, 15 Plaintiffs, v. 16 17 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc., 18 ByteDance Inc., 19 Defendants. 20 J.J., J.D., and A.D., Los Angeles County Superior Court 21 Case No. 22STCV28201 Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance 24 Inc., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 2 DESIGNATION M.L. and N.L., Los Angeles County Superior Court 1 Case No. 22STCV28204 2 Plaintiffs, v. 3 TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc., 4 5 Defendants. 6 A.S. and E.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202 7 Plaintiffs, v. 8 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 9 Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., 10 Defendants. 11 L.W. and C.W., Los Angeles County Superior Court 12 Case No. 22STCV28200 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 15 Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and 16 ByteDance Inc., 17 Defendants. 18 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., Yolo County Superior Court Case No. CV2022-1472 19 Plaintiffs, v. 20 21 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; YouTube, LLC; Google 22 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance Inc., 23 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 3 DESIGNATION 1 K.L. and S.S., San Bernadino County Superior Court Case No. Pending 2 Plaintiffs, 3 v. 4 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and 5 ByteDance Inc., 6 Defendants. 7 8 9 APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND PETITION FOR 10 COORDINATION 11 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 404, 12 et seq., and California Rules of Court 3.500, et seq., Plaintiffs and Petitioners Christina Arlington 13 Smith, individually and as successor-in-interest to Lalani Walton, Deceased, and Heriberto 14 Arroyo, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arriani Jaileen Arroyo, Deceased, and Christal 15 Arroyo, Individually, Jessica Williams, individually and as successor-in-interest to Zaiden 16 Baldwin, Deceased, D.S., K.R., and K.S., J.P., R.P., and M.P, Janet Majewski, individually and as 17 the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily Zavala, J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., K.L. and 18 S.S., J.J., J.D., and A.D., M.L. and N.L., A.S. and E.S., and L.W. and C.W., by and through their 19 counsel, Laura Marquez-Garrett, Social Media Victims Law Center, 821 Second Avenue, Suite 20 2100, Seattle, WA 98104 and Kevin Loew of Waters, Kraus & Paul, 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy, 21 Suite 1900, El Segundo, CA 90245, respectfully submit this Application for Complex Designation 22 and Petition for Coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council to coordinate the actions listed 23 below. 24 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any written opposition or response to the herein 25 Application and Petition must be filed and served at least nine (9) court days before the hearing 26 date set on this Application and Petition. A hearing on this Application and Petition for 27 coordination is hereby requested. 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 4 DESIGNATION 1 This Petition for Coordination (the “Petition”) is made pursuant to Section 404 of the 2 California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and California Rules of Court 3.521 (“CRC”). The 3 actions sought to be coordinated fall within the definition of “complex litigation” under Section 4 19 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and Rule 3.400 et seq., of the CRC. Petitioners urge 5 coordination of these ten cases before a single judge in the Superior Court for the County of Los 6 Angles and will promote the ends of justice for the following reasons: 7 1. This Petition is brought on behalf of ten parents whose children suffered injury or 8 death from social media addiction, sexual exploitation or abuse sustained though their use of 9 Defendants’ social media products. Social media litigation has been recognized as the newest 10 emerging mass tort and the undersigned law firm represents over 100 California parents who 11 intend to file in California state court in the upcoming months on behalf of their injured children. 12 2. These ten mass tort cases involve minors who sustained physical harm, mental 13 health injury and death as a result of Defendants’ defective and unreasonably dangerous social 14 media products. Workup of these cases for trial will require depositions of over 20 corporate 15 personnel, 15 experts and 25 lay witnesses; retrieval of at least 50,000 documents and electronic 16 records; elaborate electronic discovery protocols; deposition of dozens of expert witness and 17 extensive motion practice. Based upon these factors, the mass tort cases meet the criteria for 18 complex designation under California Rule of Court 3.400(b). 19 3. These ten cases share predominant issues of law and fact including whether 20 common features on defendant’s social media products are unreasonably dangerous to minor 21 users; the impact of excessive social media use on adolescent brain development and mental 22 health; Defendants’ knowledge of hazards in their social media products; Plaintiffs’ entitlement 23 to injunctive relief under California Unfair Competition Law Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 and 24 whether Defendants enjoy statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications 25 Decency Act. 26 4. Individualized trial workup of these ten cases will each involve deposition 27 testimony from mostly the same corporate personnel lay and expert witnesses; retrieval and 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 5 DESIGNATION 1 review of mostly the same documents and electronic records and raise similar issues of relevancy 2 and privilege. While the parties will work cooperatively on discovery, Court assistance will 3 inevitably be required to help the parties define the appropriate scope and timing of discovery, 4 issue protective orders and electronic discovery protocols and adjudicate issues of privilege. 5 Coordination will eliminate the inconvenience to witnesses of sitting through duplicative 6 depositions, benefit the parties by eliminating wasteful duplication and permit discovery to 7 proceed in on order and logical sequence. Coordination will conserve judicial resources by 8 eliminating the need for multiple courts to adjudicate on the same discovery issues while 9 providing the parties with clear guidance through a single set of discovery rulings and protocols 10 applicable to all cases. 11 5. Social media product liability litigation is an emerging tort and preparation these 12 cases for trial will involve extensive motion practice on issues such as Defendants’ entitlement to 13 statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; scope of permissible 14 discovery; expert challenges to plaintiff and defense experts; and standard of proof on general 15 and specific causation. Given the emerging nature of this litigation and the paucity of clear 16 controlling appellate authority on many of these issues, absent coordination duplicative and 17 inconsistent judicial rulings are inevitable. 18 6. All the cases for which consolidation is sought have been filed in the past three 19 months, no defendant has filed an answer or dispositive pleading, no discovery has been 20 propounded and no substantive rulings have been entered. Coordination at this early stage of the 21 litigation will permit the coordinating judge to establish uniform deadlines for responsive 22 pleadings, adopt an orderly discovery schedule tailored to the unique factual and legal issues in 23 these cases, schedule the briefing and argument of dispositive motions and set cases for trial. 24 This will foster a more efficient utilization of court facilities and judicial resources. 25 7. At this early stage in the litigation with so many unresolved factual and legal 26 questions, it is difficult to assess the realistic prospect of settlement. However, experience in 27 other complex mass torts teaches that settlement is almost always premised on individual cases 28 being consolidated through state-court coordinated proceeding, a federal MDL or class action. PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 6 DESIGNATION 1 To the extent that settlement of these cases are possible, coordination will enable the parties and 2 the Court to take a more global approach to resolution and focus their attention on the issues 3 most salient to settlement. 4 8. Petitioners respectfully request that Los Angeles Superior Court Complex 5 Division be assigned to determine coordination of these actions and if the cases are coordinated, 6 they proceed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Most of the cases subject to this Petition 7 are pending in Los Angeles County and Defendants Snap, Inc. and TikTok are headquartered 8 there. Los Angeles also has regular direct flights to China, Israel and India where many current 9 and former company witnesses are located and dozens of daily flights to the Bay Area where 10 Defendants Meta and ByteDance are located. 11 Petitioners seek to coordinate the cases listed below as well as similar cases filed in and to 12 be filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court: 13 14 Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30, 2022. 15 D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los 16 Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022. 17 J.P., R.P., and M.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., TikTok 18 Inc., ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26778, filed August 18, 2022. 19 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily 20 Zavala v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok 21 Inc., ByteDance, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 26829, filed August 18, 2022. 22 J.J., J.D., and A.D., v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok 23 Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28201, filed 24 August 30, 2022. 25 M.L. and N.L. v. TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28204, filed August 30, 2022. 26 27 A.S. and E.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202, filed 28 August 30, 2022. PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 7 DESIGNATION 1 L.W. and C.W. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28200, 2 filed August 30, 2022. 3 Petitioners also seek to coordinate these cases with the following similar cases filed by the 4 undersigned law firm elsewhere in the State of California. 5 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; 6 YouTube, LLC; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance, Inc., Yolo Superior Court Case No. CV2022.1472, filed August 26, 2022; and 7 K.L. and S.S. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; 8 TikTok Inc; and ByteDance Inc., San Bernadino Superior Court Case No. PENDING, 9 filed August 29, 2022. 10 Petitioners are aware of one similar action filed in the State of California by another law 11 firm: 12 Dowdy vs. Instagram LLC, et al San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-03588 filed 13 Sep. 2, 2022. 14 Petitioners’ grounds for complex designation and coordination are more particularly set 15 forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Laura 16 Marquez-Garrett, and other supporting document submitted herewith. 17 Proof of filing in each included action of a Notice of Application for Complex Designation 18 and Submission of Petition for Coordination and a copy of this Application and Petition pursuant 19 to Rule 3.522 of the CRC, and any documents to be submitted pursuant to Rule 3.523 of the CRC 20 will be submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council within the time frames provided by Rule 21 3.522 and 3.523. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 8 DESIGNATION 1 DATED this 15TH day of September 2022. 2 SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER PLLC 3 4 By: Laura Marquez-Garrett, SBN 221542 5 laura@socialmediavictims.org 6 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 7 Tel: (206) 294-1348 8 Matthew Bergman (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 9 matt@socialmediavictims.org Glenn Draper (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 10 glenn@socialmediavictims.org 821 Second Avenue, Suite 2100 11 Seattle, WA 98104 12 Tel: (206) 741-4862 Fax: (206) 957-9549 13 Kevin M. Loew (SBN 238080) kloew@waterskraus.com 14 WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 15 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 1900 El Segundo, California 90245 16 Tel: (310) 414-8146 Fax: (310) 414-8156 17 Christopher A. Seeger (Pro Hac Vice 18 anticipated) cseeger@seegerweiss.com 19 Christopher Ayers (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) cayers@seegerweiss.com 20 SEEGER WEISS LLP 21 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 22 Tel: 973-639-9100 Fax: 973-679-8656 23 Robert H. Klonoff (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) 24 klonoff@usa.net ROBERT KLONOFF, LLC 25 2425 S.W. 76th Ave. Portland, Oregon 97225 26 Tel: (503) 702-0218 Fax: (503) 768-6671 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 28 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX 9 DESIGNATION D.S., K.R., and K.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court 1 Case No. 22STCV 24332 2 Plaintiffs, v. 3 TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 4 100, Inclusive, 5 Defendants. 6 J.P., R.P., and M.P., Los Angeles County Superior Court 7 Case No. 22STCV 26778 Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 10 Facebook, Inc., TikTok Inc., ByteDance, Inc., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Janet Majewski, individually and as the Los Angeles County Superior Court Personal Representative of the Estate of Case No. 22STCV 26829 14 Emily Zavala, 15 Plaintiffs, v. 16 17 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc., 18 ByteDance, Inc., 19 Defendants. 20 J.J., J.D., and A.D., Los Angeles County Superior Court 21 Case No. 22STCV28201 Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and ByteDance 24 Inc., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 2 DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION M.L. and N.L., Los Angeles County Superior Court 1 Case No. 22STCV28204 2 Plaintiffs, v. 3 TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc., 4 5 Defendants. 6 A.S. and E.S., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28202 7 Plaintiffs, v. 8 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 9 Facebook, Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance Inc.; Snap Inc., 10 Defendants. 11 L.W. and C.W., Los Angeles County Superior Court 12 Case No. 22STCV28200 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as 15 Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and 16 ByteDance Inc., 17 Defendants. 18 J.S., D.S., L.J.S., and L.H.S., Yolo County Superior Court Case No. CV2022-1472 19 Plaintiffs, v. 20 21 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; YouTube, LLC; Google 22 LLC; Alphabet Inc.; TikTok Inc; ByteDance Inc., 23 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 3 DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION 1 K.L. and S.S., San Bernadino County Superior Court Case No. Pending 2 Plaintiffs, 3 v. 4 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; TikTok Inc; and 5 ByteDance Inc., 6 Defendants. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 4 DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2 5 A. Social Media and the Youth Mental Health Crisis ......................................................... 2 6 B. Social Media Victims Law Center .................................................................................. 3 7 C. Case Summaries .............................................................................................................. 4 8 III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7 9 A. Complex Case Designation is Warranted ....................................................................... 7 10 B. Coordination Warranted Under California Code of Civil Procedure 404 and Serves the 11 Interests of Justice ................................................................................................................... 8 12 C. Los Angeles County Superior Court is the Appropriate Venue for Coordinated 13 Proceedings. .......................................................................................................................... 16 14 IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND FOR i COORDINATION 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Citicorp North Am., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. 5 (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 563 .....................................................................................................8 6 Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 7 11 Cal.App.5th 626 (2017) ..........................................................................................10, 11, 13 8 Isaak v. Superior Court, 9 73 Cal.App.5th 792 (2022) ......................................................................................................10 10 McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.App.4th 804 (1992) ......................................................................................9, 13, 14, 15 11 Statutes 12 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ..............................................................................................................................8 13 14 California Code of Civil Procedure 404 ..........................................................................................8 15 Communications Decency Act Section 230 ..............................................................................1, 14 16 California Rule of Court 3.400(a) ....................................................................................................7 17 California Rule of Court 3.400(b) ....................................................................................................8 18 California Rule of Court 3.400(c) ............................................................................................1, 2, 8 19 Rules of Procedure Rule 6.2 ............................................................................................................8 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX ii DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to confer complex case designations on eleven 3 product liability cases involving children injured or killed through social media use pursuant to 4 California Rule of Court 3.400(c) and to coordinate these cases currently pending in four California 5 counties in Los Angeles County pursuant to CCP § 404. 6 All eleven cases allege that as designed and developed by Defendants Meta Platforms Inc. 7 (“Meta”), Snap, Inc. (“Snap”), and TikTok Inc. ByteDance Inc. (collectively, “TikTok”) the 8 Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok products, respectively, are unreasonably dangerous 9 to users, particularly to children and teens (under the age of 18); that Defendants failed to warn 10 minors and their parents about the risks posed by the products; and that the products contained 11 design defects as developed by Defendants. Among the harms alleged are that Defendants’ 12 products were designed to and did addict young users to Defendants’ products and that Defendants 13 designed and programmed their products to identify for and direct minors to unwanted and 14 psychologically harmful content; designed products that encouraged and facilitated unsolicited 15 contacts from adult predators and the exchange of explicit and illegal sexual images, as well as 16 exploitation and abuse of minor users; failed to limit minor users’ screen time to healthy amounts 17 and affirmatively designed and operated their products to encourage and manipulate users into 18 spending harmful and dangerous amounts of time using those products; and failed to warn minors 19 (and their parents) of foreseeable harms arising from anticipated use of their social media products. 20 Defendants all claim immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 21 and allege that their products are protected by the First Amendment. 22 Litigation of these mass tort cases will involve extensive motion practice involving 23 complex legal issues, wide ranging discovery of terabytes of electronically stored data, and 24 depositions of numerous corporate, lay, and expert witnesses. 25 Coordination of these eleven cases will promote judicial efficiency and economy by 26 providing for the unified management of both pretrial and trial phases of these cases. Despite 27 individual differences between cases and several different social media defendants, common issues 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND FOR 1 COORDINATION 1 of fact and law predominate, and coordination of discovery and motions practice would maximize 2 efficiency and conserve judicial resources. Social media product liability litigation is a newly 3 emerging mass tort with a paucity of appellate authority. Coordination would therefore avoid 4 duplication judicial effort on the many complex legal issues that will be presented throughout the 5 litigation of these cases and avoid the prospect of inconsistent rulings. 6 All eleven cases qualify for complex status under California Rule of Court 3.400(c) and 7 coordination is amply warranted under CCP § 404 and will manifestly serve the interests of justice. 8 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9 A. Social Media and the Youth Mental Health Crisis 10 Social media use has become increasingly common in daily life, used by billions of people 11 on a regular basis. While all age groups have a percentage of active social media users, not all of 12 these cohorts use social media in the same way or to the same extent. A Pew Research 13 Center report showed that 84 percent of American adults aged 18 to 29 use some form of social 14 media. Among teenagers, social media usage is estimated at being over 90 percent. 15 Minors also are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of social media as they are 16 still in their developmental years. In his 2021 Protecting Youth Mental Health advisory, the U.S. 17 Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, MD, warned the American public of a mental health crises 18 among young adults caused in part by their overuse of social media. He cited several studies about 19 20 the harms of social media, many of which “argue that digital technologies can […] lead to 1 21 depression, anxiety, and self-harm.” 22 Surgeon General Murthy reported that between 2009 to 2019, the proportion of high school 23 students reporting persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness increased by 40 percent; those 24 seriously considering attempting suicide increased by 36 percent; and those creating a suicide plan 25 increased by 44 percent. Between 2011 and 2015, youth psychiatric visits to emergency 26 27 28 1 https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-youth-mental-health-advisory.pdf MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 2 DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION 1 departments for depression, anxiety, and behavioral challenges increased by 28 percent. 2 2 Moreover, 3 Between 2007 and 2018, suicide rates among youth ages 10-24 in the U.S. 4 increased by 57 percent. Early estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest there were tragically more than 6,600 deaths by 5 suicide among the 10-24 age group in 2020 . . . In early 2021, emergency department visits in the United States for suspected suicide attempts were 6 51 % higher for adolescent girls and 4% percent higher for adolescent boys compared to the same time period in early 2019.3 7 The Surgeon General identified social media as a major factor in this youth mental crisis 8 and called on companies to take greater responsibility in designing safer products, 9 In these digital public spaces, which privately owned and tend to be run for profit, 10 there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s 11 best for the individual user or for society. Business models are often built around maximizing user engagement as opposed to safeguarding users’ health and ensuring 12 that users engage with one another in safe and healthy ways. This translates to technology companies focusing on maximizing time spent, not time well spent. 4 13 B. Social Media Victims Law Center 14 The Social Media Victims Law Center (SMVLC) was established in late 2021 in response 15 to Surgeon General Murthy’s advisory, Congressional testimony from former Meta employee 16 Frances Haugen describing the social media companies’ knowledge of the harms their products 17 were inflicting on young people and leaked internal Meta documents published in the Wall Street 18 Journal. SMVLC seeks to apply traditional product liability concepts to hold social media 19 20 companies legally accountable for alleged design defects in their platforms that cause harm to kids. 21 SMVLC represents several parents throughout the United States whose children have died, 22 suffered severe mental health injuries, and/or been sexually abused through their addictive and 23 harmful use of social media. SMVLC has filed twenty-two cases in federal court and ten actions 24 in California State Court, which are subject to this Petition. 25 26 2 Id. at p. 8. 27 3 Id. at p. 8-9. 28 4 Id. at p. 25. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLEX 3 DESIGNATION AND FOR COORDINATION 1 C. Case Summaries 2 Petitioners seek to coordinate the cases listed below as well as similar cases filed in and to 3 be filed in the State of California that constitute the subject of the herein petition. 4 1. Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, 5 Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 21355, filed June 30, 2022. 6 Nature of Case. Wrongful death and survivorship action brought by four parents arising 7 out of the death of three children (ages 8, 9, and 12), where all three children died as the 8 result of self-strangulation while performing the viral TikTok Blackout Challenge. 9 Named Defendants. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. 10 Claims. Strict Product Liability (design defect and failure to warn), Negligence, and Unfair Business Practice. 11 12 Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Social Media Victims Law Center. 13 2. D.S., K.R., and K.S. v. TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., and Does 1 - 100, Inclusive, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV 24332, filed July 28, 2022