Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
V. et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al
Case Number:
3:23-cv-00284
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Carmody Torrance
- Covington & Burling
- Kennedy Johnson Schwab
- Social Media Victims Law Center
- Wiggin & Dana
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
September 19, 2024
Snapchat Settles Conn. Bitmoji Sex Assault Case
Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. has settled a Connecticut state court case accusing it of enabling sexual predators to convince their targets to meet them in person through the use of Bitmojis, which are cartoonish, youthful-looking caricatures of the platform's users.
-
July 10, 2024
Snapchat Cites Federal Immunity In Conn. Sex Assault Case
Leaning heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Snap Inc. said Wednesday in Connecticut state court that a retooled complaint accusing it of being a co-creator or co-publisher of Bitmojis that made sexual predators look younger and less dangerous to children must fail because individual users remain in control of content published online.
-
June 10, 2024
Snap Slams Connecticut Girl's Renewed Sex Assault Suit
A renewed lawsuit alleging that Snapchat's Bitmoji avatars make it easier for sexual predators and other malicious individuals to groom minors must be dismissed again, Snap Inc. told a Connecticut state court, because the new complaint retreads the same allegations the court already tossed out.
-
March 04, 2024
Snapchat Lures Victims As Bitmoji 'Co-Publisher,' Suit Says
Two weeks after a state court judge shredded the case, two parents and a minor renewed a lawsuit against Snapchat alleging the girl was sexually assaulted by two men she met online, arguing that their case targets the platform's own cartoon-like content and not third-party posts falling under federal immunity law.
-
February 20, 2024
Conn. Judge Reluctantly Frees Snap From Sex Assault Suit
A Connecticut state judge on Friday reluctantly ended a suit alleging Snap Inc. linked an underage girl to registered sex offenders who raped and assaulted her, quoting a First Circuit opinion that held such cases are difficult since Section 230 requires courts to deny relief "to plaintiffs whose circumstances evoke outrage."
-
January 05, 2024
Meta Cut From Conn. Products Liability And Sex Assault Suit
In a case that has toggled between state and federal court and avoided being rolled into a multidistrict litigation proceeding, Meta Platforms Inc. has been unceremoniously removed from a Connecticut products liability lawsuit against two online platforms and two men convicted of sexually assaulting a minor they met online.
-
November 17, 2023
Meta, Snapchat Say Assault, Defect Claims Can't Be Combined
Meta Platforms Inc. and Snapchat have urged a Connecticut state court to strike a complaint that joins assault and product liability claims brought by parents who say their child was raped by two men she met on social media, arguing that Constitution State law doesn't allow the combination of two distinct cases.
-
May 24, 2023
Meta Product Liability Case Remanded To Conn. State Court
A judge has remanded to Connecticut Superior Court a lawsuit that accuses Meta Platforms Inc. and Snapchat of operating defective products that exposed a child to mental and physical harm, including sexual assault, because they do not verify the age of their users.
-
May 17, 2023
Meta Wants Co-Defendants Kicked From Mental Health Suit
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. and Snapchat included two Connecticut inmates as defendants, despite the "wildly different" claims against the parties, because they wanted to ensure that the case is heard at the state level, counsel for Meta argued in Hartford federal court on Wednesday.
-
May 05, 2023
Meta Mental Health Suit Moves Forward As MDL Looms
Despite the specter of multidistrict litigation, a federal judge in Connecticut on Friday refused to stay a mental health products liability lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., Snapchat and two Connecticut men, saying she was in "a better position than the MDL court" to decide unique remand issues under Connecticut law and unresolved doctrines in the Second Circuit.