9th Circ Questions Feasibility of Rohingya Genocide Victims Investigating Meta’s Role

0
82

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.