FOLLOW US

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.

This reasoning drew sharp criticism from the panel. U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon called such suggestions “abstract and silly,” while Judge William A. Fletcher dismissed the idea as implausible, asking rhetorically, "A person in a refugee camp has an obligation to talk to an American lawyer?"

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

Roger Perlstadt, representing the plaintiffs, argued that his clients—one living in a refugee camp and the other immigrating to the U.S.—lacked the means to discover Meta’s involvement until approached by attorneys. He maintained that the case should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage, as a jury could decide whether investigating Meta's role was realistic under such circumstances. Perlstadt also contended that Meta’s use of harmful algorithms precludes immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Judges Weigh Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule

The panel questioned California’s legal standards for duty to investigate. Judge Ryan D. Nelson noted the claims might be "attenuated" but expressed surprise that the lower court hadn’t fully considered allegations that local communities were unaware of Meta’s involvement at the time.