Meta’s US legal headaches have followed it to Australia.

MinterEllison has filed a class action against Meta Platforms Inc in the Federal Court, alleging Facebook and Instagram are addictive by design and expose children and teens to harmful content.

It’s the first class action in Aussie legal history to allege a social media platform has harmed its users’ mental health.

The case is Lead Applicant 1 & Ors v Meta Platforms Inc & Ors and has been docketed to Justice Jackman. Meta’s local and offshore arms, Facebook Australia, Instagram LLC and Meta Platforms Ireland, are also named as respondents.

The class is made up of current and former users who say they suffered harm before turning 18. Eight lead applicants are fronting the claim, each a child or teenager when the alleged harm took place.

Beyond that, details are thin.

On 19 October, Registrar White made interim suppression orders over the originating application, statement of claim and genuine steps statement. The applicants’ identities are suppressed too.

So, we don’t know exactly what’s being alleged.

MinterEllison partner David Taylor offered a glimpse: “The claims include allegations about Meta’s awareness of potential harm to children and its use of features designed to encourage engagement.”

Fellow Minters partner William Nolan added: “Children and teenagers are especially vulnerable to these platforms. Their brains are still developing…that vulnerability is at the heart of this case.”

University of Sydney digital regulation expert Rob Nicholls flagged two possible paths. The first is negligence, mirroring the US playbook. The second relies on the Australian Consumer Law, via claims like misleading or deceptive conduct and breaches of consumer guarantees.

His tip for Minters? Throw everything at it.

“If I were in Minters’ shoes, I would argue a lot of things and see what sticks.”

Meta has been here before.

In the US, it’s lost most of the similar cases brought against it, with findings that its platforms are addictive or in breach of consumer protection laws.

And it’s cost Meta dearly. In August, it agreed to pay US$13bn to settle actions brought by 29 states. It also agreed to build in child-safety features, including time limits and late-night curfews for users under 18.

But Nicholls cautioned that what worked in the US may not land here.

US courts often punish defendants with big damages bills. Here, damages are generally limited to the loss a plaintiff can show they actually suffered.

“Proving that loss can be hard,” Nicholls said.

Then there’s the under-16 social media ban. Since the ban kicked in last December, Meta can argue it hasn’t provided accounts to 13 to 15-year-olds, so anyone in that bracket shouldn’t be in the class.

“So you have to be very careful in choosing your class members and your lead plaintiffs,” said Nicholls.

MinterEllison is acting for the applicants, led by partners William Nolan and David Taylor. Litigation Lending Services is funding the claim.

HSF Kramer is defending Meta.

Source: MinterEllison, Commonwealth Courts, AFR