V.V. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

1

V.V. and E.Q., individually and as next friends to minor C.O., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; SNAP, INC.; SNAPCHAT, LLC; REGINALD SHARP; and EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.

No. 3:23-CV-284 (SVN)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 24, 2023

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND

SARALA V. NAGALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiffs V.V. and E.Q., the parents of minor child C.O., initiated the present action in Connecticut Superior Court against three corporations that operate several social media platforms (altogether, the “Corporate Defendants”)-Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), which operates Facebook and Instagram; and Snap, Inc. and Snapchat, LLC (together “Snap”), which operate Snapchat. Plaintiffs allege that the Corporate Defendants' social media platforms were defectively designed and marketed under Connecticut state law because they exposed C.O. to mental and physical harm. As part of the same action, Plaintiffs also bring claims for battery and assault under Connecticut state law against two individuals, Reginald Sharp and Eddie Rodriguez (the “Individual Defendants”), who allegedly sexually assaulted C.O. after contacting her through Snap's social media platform.

The Corporate Defendants removed the action to federal court, and they ultimately seek transfer of this action to a pending multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the Northern District of California involving adolescent mental health issues arising from social media use. Plaintiffs, for their part, filed the present motion to remand the action back to Connecticut Superior Court contending that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the action. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to remand and directs the Clerk to remand this case back to Connecticut Superior Court.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The complaint contains the following allegations. Plaintiffs and their minor child C.O., as well as the Individual Defendants, are residents of Connecticut. Compl., ECF No. 1-4, ¶¶ 21-22, 24-25. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Id. ¶ 19. The companies that comprise Snap are incorporated in Delaware and Nevada, and both maintain their principal places of business in California. Id. ¶ 20.

C.O., now fifteen years old, opened Facebook and Instagram accounts when she was ten years old, and she opened a Snapchat account when she was twelve years old. Id. ¶ 138. According to Plaintiffs, the Corporate Defendants purport to impose age restrictions for the use of their products, but those efforts are not successful in keeping minors from creating accounts because the Corporate Defendants do not verify users' ages. Id. ¶¶ 58, 140. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Corporate Defendants allow minor children to open multiple accounts, which they often do secretly to evade parental oversight, and which C.O. did for that purpose. Id. ¶¶ 140-50. Plaintiffs further allege that the Corporate Defendants should have known that C.O. was a minor, and that she was creating multiple accounts to evade parental supervision, because the Corporate Defendants implement proprietary technology that reviews each user's account activity and collects data from the user's device to determine the actual age of the user with reasonable certainty. Id. ¶¶ 152-55.

Plaintiffs allege that C.O.'s ongoing, secretive use of social media “coincided with a severe and steady decline in C.O.'s mental and physical health.” Id. ¶ 159. Over time, she experienced severe sleep deprivation, anxiety, depression, mood swings, inability to regulate her emotions, bullying by other minor users, and difficulty in school. Id. ¶¶ 160, 178. These symptoms resulted from various allegedly addictive features of the Corporate Defendants' social media platforms, including: frequent pop-up or “push” notifications designed to increase the frequency of user engagement; algorithms designed to recommend content based on the user's activity and demographics to encourage continued engagement; and features such as the “like” button and filters designed to encourage comparison among users. Id. ¶¶ 76, 78, 87-88, 91, 163, 165.

According to the complaint, the public nature of C.O.'s social media accounts, the algorithms that recommended other users with whom C.O. could connect, and the direct messaging features of the social media platforms resulted in several alleged sexual predators contacting and exploiting C.O. Around 2018, when she was only ten or eleven years old, an unidentified man contacted C.O. through Instagram's direct messaging features. Id. ¶ 188. The man coerced her into sending him explicit photos of herself and eventually threatened to upload the photos to the Internet. Id. ¶¶ 188-89. Plaintiffs allege that C.O., driven by fear that her parents would find out about her secretive social media use and of the man publishing the photos, attempted to commit suicide. Id. ¶ 189. When Plaintiffs eventually reported the man's exploitation to the police, the police informed them that Instagram was designed in such a way that they could not identify the man. Id. ¶ 191. Although Plaintiffs attempted to restrict C.O.'s social media use from that point on, they were unable to completely restrict her access to Internet-enabled devices, and she ultimately continued to secretly maintain social media accounts. Id. ¶ 192.

On July 15, 2019, when C.O. was twelve years old, she connected with Individual Defendant Sharp via Snapchat's “Quick Add” feature, which implements an algorithm that collects user activity and data and recommends other users with whom that user can connect. Id. ¶¶ 68, 198-99.

Sharp was a registered sex offender at that time. Id. ¶ 199. After connecting with C.O. on Snapchat, Sharp coerced C.O. into sending him explicit photos, then threatened to post the photos on Snapchat unless C.O. met him in person and engaged in sexual relations with him. Id. ¶¶ 200-01. On July 23, 2019, just eight days after connecting with him, C.O. snuck out of her house at night to meet Sharp, and he sexually assaulted her. Id. ¶ 201. Plaintiffs reported the incident to the police, who were able to identify Sharp based on his fictitious Snapchat account. Id. ¶ 203. Plaintiffs allege that, more than three years after Sharp's arrest for sexually assaulting C.O., he still appeared to have an active Snapchat account. Id. ¶ 205.

In October of 2021, when C.O. was fourteen years old, she connected with Individual Defendant Rodriguez, a former police officer and at that time a registered sex offender, again via Snapchat's Quick Add feature. Id. ¶ 209. They began exchanging explicit photos, and, when she accepted his offer for a ride to school, he sexually assaulted her in his car. Id.

In January of 2023, Plaintiffs initiated the present action in Connecticut Superior Court, individually and as next friends of C.O. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs bring the following claims against the Corporate Defendants: violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”) under various theories, including strict liability for a design defect, id. ¶ 222, strict liability for failure to warn, id. ¶ 263, and negligence, id. ¶ 278; violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), id. ¶ 290; and various torts under Connecticut common law, including unjust enrichment, id. ¶ 294, invasion of privacy, id. ¶ 298, and negligence, id. ¶ 303. In addition, Plaintiffs bring claims of assault and battery against the Individual Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 311, 316.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Shortly after Plaintiffs initiated this action in Connecticut Superior Court, Meta timely removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1, ¶ 7. Meta seeks to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction, contending that there is diversity among all properly joined Defendants and that the non-diverse Individual Defendants are fraudulently misjoined. Id. ¶¶ 19, 24. Snap consented to the removal,^[1] id. ¶ 1, and Meta contends that the consent of the Individual Defendants is not required because they are not properly joined, id. ¶ 44. Plaintiffs promptly filed the present motion to remand the action back to Connecticut state court, contending that the Individual Defendants are not fraudulently misjoined, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action because complete diversity does not exist, and that removal was improper under the forum defendant rule because the Individual Defendants are citizens of Connecticut, where the action was brought. ECF No. 17; see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

In the meantime, the Corporate Defendants filed a notice tagging this action for potential transfer to MDL No. 3047. Cases transferred to the MDL have been found to involve “common factual questions” arising from allegations that major social media platforms, such as those operated by the Corporate Defendants here, “are defective because they are designed to maximize user screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents.” In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3047, 2022 WL 5409144, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 6, 2022). After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued a conditional transfer order for this action, see Case MDL No. 3047, ECF No. 160; ECF No. 26-3, Plaintiffs moved to vacate the order, which automatically stayed the transfer. The JPML thereafter calendared Plaintiffs' motion for its May 25, 2023, hearing date, and later issued a notice stating that it will consider Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the conditional transfer order without oral argument. Case MDL No. 3047, ECF No. 183 at 13.^[2]

This Court...