Meta Platforms, Inc., has gone to an appeals court after a circuit judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Florida Attorney General’s Office alleging that features of Facebook and Instagram are harmful to children and that the company engaged in misrepresentation.
Meta, which operates the social-media platforms, filed a petition last week at the state’s 2nd District Court of Appeal after Pasco County Circuit Judge Alicia Polk in October rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, alleges that the company has violated a law known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. But attorneys for Meta argued in last week’s petition that the case should be tossed out because of a federal law — widely known as “Section 230” — that helps shield social-media companies from liability and because of the First Amendment.
“The decision below (in circuit court) deprives Meta of its statutory and constitutional rights — rights that preclude this litigation in the first place,” attorneys for the company wrote.
“As Florida courts have already determined, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act provides an immunity from suit that prevents interactive computer service providers such as Meta from facing liability based on their role as publishers of third-party content. Separately, rights to freedom of expression in the United States and Florida constitutions protect the editorial decisions Meta makes when publishing that content, as well as other forms of expressive activity.”
The case is one of numerous lawsuits in Florida and across the country that focus, at least in part, on the effects of social media on children. As an example, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week said Florida can at least temporarily begin enforcing a 2024 law aimed at keeping children off certain social-media platforms.
The Pasco County case, filed in December 2024 by then-Attorney General Ashley Moody, seeks an injunction and civil penalties under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUPTA as it is known in state legal circles. Moody was appointed to the U.S. Senate early this year and was replaced by Attorney General James Uthmeier, who also has targeted social-media companies.
The lawsuit contends that Facebook and Instagram, through features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and reels, keep children glued to the social-media sites and can lead to psychological and other health harms. It also alleges that Meta has misrepresented information about the platforms.
“Even though Meta has long known that its young users are particularly susceptible to the harmful design of its products, Meta continues to design its products to target and exploit its most vulnerable users,” the state’s lawyers wrote.
Polk, the circuit judge, offered little explanation in a one-page order Oct. 27 rejecting Meta’s motion to dismiss the case.
But in last week’s petition to the appeals court, attorneys for Meta wrote that the platform features targeted in the lawsuit “reflect Meta’s editorial choices as to whether, when, and how to publish user-generated content. Accordingly, the state’s claims necessarily challenge Meta’s publication of that third-party content. Section 230 has been interpreted to bar claims that would impose liability on an entity for performing a publisher’s ‘traditional editorial functions.’”
Meta also argued its role as a publisher offers First Amendment protections against the lawsuit.
“The First Amendment protects Meta’s editorial decisions regarding whether and how to publish, display, and disseminate user-generated content on its services,” the petition said. “This right of ‘editorial control and judgment’ finds its roots in traditional publishing as far back as the Founding,” the petition said, partially quoting a U.S. Supreme Court opinion.
