During a Ninth Circuit hearing Wednesday, judges expressed skepticism over the plausibility of arguments suggesting Rohingya genocide victims could have investigated Meta Platforms Inc.’s alleged role in spreading disinformation that fueled violence. The appeal challenges a lower court’s dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Meta on statute of limitations grounds.
The lawsuit stems from Myanmar military attacks in 2012 and 2017 that devastated Rohingya communities. Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, who fled the violence, allege Meta contributed to the atrocities by amplifying anti-Rohingya hate speech on its platform. The suit, filed in 2021, accuses Meta of using algorithms that incited violence.
In January, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs failed to invoke California’s discovery rule to toll the two-year statute of limitations, which purportedly began at the time of the attacks.
Judges Push Back on Defense Arguments
Meta’s attorney, Kristin A. Linsley, argued that plaintiffs could have investigated earlier through reports such as the United Nations’ 2018 findings and whistleblower Frances Haugen’s disclosures. She suggested that even from refugee camps, plaintiffs could have sought legal counsel or consulted literate members of their community.
