District judge rules she has authority to hear Messenger part of AG’s case against Meta

A judge determined Monday that she had the authority to hear the Nevada attorney general’s case against Meta’s Messenger app, but she dismissed some parts of the case.

The case began in January, when Attorney General Aaron Ford filed a series of lawsuits against Meta-owned platforms Facebook, Instagram and Messenger. The state has alleged that Meta’s algorithms have been designed to addict young users.

The hearing before District Judge Joanna Kishner focused on whether just one part of the case — the state’s claims against Messenger — would be dismissed. After hours of arguments, she found that she had jurisdiction or power to preside over the case.

But she granted the motion to dismiss as it applied to three parts of the case: a claim under Nevada’s deceptive trade practices act, a products liability claim and an unjust enrichment claim. She made each dismissal with the provision that the state could amend its claims.

“The case is going forward,” said Michael Gayan, an attorney representing the state. While the judge dismissed three parts of the complaint, he said her decision allows the state to file a new complaint with more allegations.

Attorneys for Meta declined to comment after the hearing.

Meta has asserted that the District Court doesn’t have authority to hear the case because it’s a national and global company.

“Meta knows it has millions of Nevada users of Messenger,” Gayan argued. “It knows where they are. It knows what they’re doing. It’s harvesting all of their data and using it and exploiting it for commercial purposes.”

Meta attorney Timothy Hester said that the state had not shown that Meta targeted Nevada and that the company was protected by the First Amendment as well as Section 230, a federal law that shields tech platforms from liability for what users post.

Gayan said the First Amendment and Section 230 didn’t protect Meta in the case. The state doesn’t seek to make Meta take down posts, he said.

Kishner agreed that the First Amendment and 230 defenses didn’t apply.

“We are pleased with Judge Kishner’s decision regarding personal jurisdiction, and we are focused on holding accountable those companies who have disregarded the harms they’ve inflicted on our children,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement.