WASHINGTON – Nearly four dozen states on Friday asked the federal appeals court to reconsider a no-confidence lawsuit against Facebook that a judge dismissed last year.
In June, Judge James E. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Bosberg said the states had waited too long after some of the deals under investigation were made to file their claims.
The plaintiffs, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and comprising the Districts of Columbia and Guam, argued in their appeal that states have more latitude than private plaintiffs when they file lawsuits. They also argued that it was in the public interest for the attorney general to file a no-confidence motion against Facebook’s parent company, Meta.
The states central claim that Facebook acquired competitors – particularly Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 – in a violent way, to crush the competition. They also argue that Facebook has hurt competitors like Vine by blocking them from accessing data and tools on its platform. It hurt consumers, who were deprived of more competition and alternative services in social networking, states claim.
“Frequently, the social media giant has used its market dominance to drive small companies out of business and reduce competition for millions of users,” she said. Said James. “We are filing this appeal with the support of almost every state in the nation because we will always fight against attempts to stop competition, reduce innovation and reduce privacy protection, even if we face Goliath like Facebook.”
“We believe the district court’s decision was correct, and there is no basis for overturning that decision,” said Chris Sgro, who overthrew Matta.
Legal pressure against Meta has intensified in recent days. Appeal of States Shri. Bosberg approved a revised version of the same no-confidence lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC argued that the company used a “buy-or-sell” strategy in its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to create a monopoly on social networking.
Mr. Bosberg was initially skeptical of both lawsuits, but for different reasons. He said federal regulators have not provided enough evidence to support some of his basic statements, such as that Facebook has a monopoly. He said this week that regulators had cleared the bar in a revised suit.