Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 6
`Caasc8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeoomneitl97 Ai¢eddl00066222 Paggeliob66
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
`
`ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY
`
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDLNo. 3047
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in one action (Murden) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
`centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or the Western District of Missouri, and
`also supports centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Ohio,
`or the District of Utah. This litigation consists of 28 actions pending in 17 districts, as listed on
`Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of 56 related actions in 24
`districts. |
`
`though their stance on whether to
`Responding plaintiffs largely favor centralization,
`include claims against defendants other than Meta” varies. Most support including in an MDLall
`cases that name Meta defendants,but not cases that name only non-Meta defendants.’ In addition
`to the transferee districts suggested or supported by movant, these plaintiffs variously suggest or
`support the Northern District of California or the District of Oregon. Plaintiff in one potentially-
`related action naming only TikTok (Anderson) opposes inclusion of her action in centralized
`proceedings.
`
`The Meta defendants support centralizationofall actions in the Eastern or Western District
`of Kentuckyor, alternatively, in the Middle District of Florida or the Northern District of Georgia.
`
`Judges Nathaniel M. Gorton, David C. Norton, and Roger T. Benitez took no part in the
`decision of this matter.
`
`These and any otherrelated actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
`I
`7.1, and 7.2.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC, Facebook
`Payments, Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC, Instagram LLC,and Siculus,Inc.
`
`Snap, Inc. (Snap); TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance,Inc. (TikTok); and YouTube, LLC, Google
`3
`LLC, and Alphabet Inc. (YouTube). Twenty-two actions and potential tag-along actions name
`one or more of these defendants, in addition to the Meta defendants. Four potential tag-along
`actions name one or moreof these defendants, without naming Meta.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 6
`Caasc8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeoomneitl97 Al¢edl00066222 RPagee22ob66
`
`-2-
`
`Snap, TikTok, and YouTube oppose inclusion of claims against them in centralized proceedings.
`Snap and TikTok alternatively support Meta’s suggested transferee districts. At oral argument,
`counsel for TikTok addedthat, if the Panel chooses to include any actions naming TikTokin an
`MDL,then it should include all actions naming TikTok—eventhosenot also naming Meta.
`
`Onthe basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
`involve common questions offact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California
`will serve the convenience ofthe parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
`of this litigation. These actions present common factual questions arising from allegations that
`defendants’ social media platforms are defective because they are designed to maximize user
`screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. Plaintiffs allege defendants
`were aware,but failed to warn the public, that their platforms were harmful to minors.
`
`All parties agree that the claims involving Meta share questionsoffact, including whether
`Meta’s platforms (Facebook and Instagram) encourage addictive behavior, fail to verify users’
`ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against
`harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content. Centralization will
`eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
`motions to dismiss and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources ofthe parties, their counsel,
`and the judiciary.
`
`In opposing centralization of the actions naming them, defendants TikTok, Snap, and
`YouTube argue that: (1) defendants’ various social media platforms operate—and plaintiffs
`interacted with them—indifferent ways and,therefore, individual factual issues will predominate;
`(2) including direct competitor defendants in the MDL will complicate proceedings; and (3)
`voluntary coordination of the small numberof claims against them is feasible and preferrable to
`participating in what they anticipate will be burdensomepretrial proceedings. We do not find
`these arguments persuasive.
`
`That individualized factual issues may arise in each action does not—especially at this
`early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization. The transferee
`judge can address unique issues using separate discovery tracks for each defendant or platform
`and employ separate motion tracks, to the extent necessary. The Panel has centralized product
`liability cases involving similar products made by different manufacturers where there will be
`overarching issues of general causation. See, e.g., In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., 122
`F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2015). In addition to persuasively arguing that causation issues
`will overlap, the Meta defendants point out that all defendants likely will assert the same defenses.
`Centralization ofall actions, therefore, will allow for efficient coordination of briefing and rulings
`on motions to dismiss, as well as Daubert motions.*
`
`For this reason in particular, we are inclined to believe that the MDL should include the
`4
`potentially related actions alleging that defendants’ social media platforms encourage addiction in
`
`(continued)
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 6
`Caasc8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeoowmneitl97 Ai¢edl00066222 Pag@ess0b66
`
`-3-
`
`the measures required to protect competing
`Opposing defendants also argue that
`defendants’ trade secret and confidential information will complicate centralized proceedings. But
`more than one-quarter of the pending actions involve multiple defendants already. Consequently,
`protecting defendants’ trade secrets and confidential information will be at issue regardless of
`whetherthese cases are included in the MDL.
`In fact, centralization will allow a single judge to
`streamline protective orders and other protocols.
`
`Finally, we disagree that the parties can effectively informally coordinate the more than
`twenty actions that name multiple defendants. Allowing those actions to proceed separately in
`various courts would hinderthe transferee court’s efforts to conducta single, efficient, coordinated
`proceeding, particularly given that each of the multi-defendant actions on the motion also name
`the common Meta defendants. Furthermore, as the Panel frequently holds, transfer of a particular
`action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole,
`even if it might inconvenience someparties to that action. See, e.g., In re CrownLife Ins. Co.
`Premium Litig., 178 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
`
`Opposing defendants alternatively request the Panel separate and remandthe claims against
`them to their transferor courts. We declineto do so,as plaintiffs allege commonindivisible injuries
`from multiple products, and severance and remand would complicate the litigation by multiplying
`each plaintiff's claims across different courts.
`
`Wefind the Northern District of California to be an appropriate transferee district for this
`litigation. Several defendants are headquartered in or near this district, and centralization will
`facilitate coordination with the state court cases pending in California. We will assign this complex
`litigation to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—an experienced transferee judge whopresides over
`a pending action. Weare confident she will steer this matter on a prudent course.
`
`adolescents—evenif they do not name the Meta defendants. Additionally, at oral argument, Meta
`argued that many,if not most, of the adolescents namedin thelitigation engaged in simultaneous
`and overlapping use of multiple platforms, and someplaintiffs may add defendants as they develop
`the facts of their case. According to Meta, this occurred in the Northern District of California
`Rodriguez action, which initially named just Meta and Snap, but was later amended to include
`TikTok. The potential for each case to later involve additional platforms and defendants weighs
`in favor of including the non-Meta cases in the MDL. The Panelhas been notified of at least four
`actions that have as defendants Snap, YouTube, and/or TikTok, but not Meta. Amongtheseis the
`Anderson case, in which plaintiff opposes inclusion in the MDL. Arguments concerning the
`inclusion of these non-Metacases will be considered in due course through the conditional transfer
`order process, as these actions are not now before the Panel. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 4 of 6
`Caasc8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeooumneitl97 Ai¢eddl00066222 Pagget4ob66
`
`-4-
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDEREDthatthe actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with
`the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated or
`consolidated pretrial proceedings.
`
`PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`Catduhl
`
`Karen K. Caldwell
`Chair
`
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Madeline Cox Arleo
`
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 5 of 6
`Caasc8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeoowmneitl97 Al¢edl00066222 RPag@ebcob66
`
`IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
`
`ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY
`
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDLNo. 3047
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`Southern District of Alabama
`
`ELY v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—00268
`
`Northern District of California
`
`RODRIGUEZ v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22—00401
`HEFFNER v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22-03849
`ARANDA,ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., C.A. No. 3:22-04209
`MARTIN,ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., C.A. No. 3:22-04286
`SPENCE,ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., F/K/A FACEBOOK,INC.,
`C.A. No. 4:22-03294
`SEEKFORD v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:22—03883
`ROBERTS, ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:22-04210
`N, ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., C.A. No. 4:22-04283
`
`District of Colorado
`
`HARRIS v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—01420
`TESCH v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—01795
`CAHOONEv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—01848
`
`District of Delaware
`
`GUERRERO v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—00750
`
`Southern District of Florida
`
`CHARLESv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—21721
`
`Northern District of Georgia
`
`WADDELLv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22—00112
`
`Northern District of Illinois
`
`ROTH v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—02968
`WILLIAMSv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-03470
`ISAACS v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-—03883
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03849-JD Document 17 Filed 10/06/22 Page 6 of 6
`Caas8i2RicWO38097)JDDdeoowmneitl97 Ai¢edl00066222 Pag@escob66
`
`-A2
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`MURDENv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22-01511
`
`Eastern District of Kentucky
`
`WHITE v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:22—00189
`
`Western District of Kentucky
`
`CRAIG v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—00087
`
`Western District of Louisiana
`
`GILL, ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—02173
`
`Western District of Missouri
`
`ESTEVANOTT v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:22—03149
`
`District of Oregon
`
`DOFFING v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22—00100
`
`Middle District of Tennessee
`
`TANTONv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22—00411
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`CARTER, ET AL. v. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22—-01343
`
`Southern District of Texas
`
`CAMACHOv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:22—01815
`
`Eastern District of Wisconsin
`
`DAWLEYv. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22—00444
`
`