Conn. District Court Judge Grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Social Media Suit

U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala for Connecticut in Hartford granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand a social media lawsuit to Connecticut Superior Court in Fairfield, in a Wednesday ruling and order on motion to remand (docket 3:23-cv-00284). The court had oral argument on the motion May 17.

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs allege Meta’s and Byte’s social media platforms were defectively designed and marketed under Connecticut state law because they exposed their daughter, C.O., to mental and physical harm. The same action has claims for battery and assault under Connecticut state law against individual defendants Reginald Sharp and Eddie Rodriguez, who allegedly sexually assaulted C.O. after contacting her via Snap.

C.O., now 15, opened Facebook and Instagram accounts when she was 10 and a Snapchat account when she was 12, said the complaint. Her ongoing secretive use of social media coincided with a “severe and steady decline” of her mental and physical health, it said. The social media platforms’ algorithms, which recommended other users with whom C.O. could connect -- along with direct messaging features -- resulted in several alleged sexual predators contacting and exploiting the girl, it said.

The complaint alleged C.O. attempted suicide in 2018 after an unidentified man coerced her into sending him explicit photos of herself and threatened to upload the photos to the internet. When the parents reported the incident to police, they told plaintiffs they couldn’t identify the man due to the way Instagram was designed, the complaint said.

In 2019, Sharp, a registered sex offender, connected with C.O. via a fictitious Snapchat account through the platform’s Quick Add feature, coerced her to send explicit photos and threatened to post them unless she met him in person and engaged in sexual relations with him, the complaint alleges. It alleges he sexually assaulted her eight days after she connected with him. In October 2021, C.O. connected with Rodriguez, also via Snapchat Quick Add, the complaint alleges. They exchanged explicit photos, and when she accepted his offer for a ride to school, he allegedly sexually assaulted her in his car.

Based on the allegations of the complaint, the district court lacks jurisdiction over the action due to a lack of complete diversity, Nagala ruled. Though the plaintiffs are diverse from the corporate defendants, both plaintiffs and the individual defendants are citizens of Connecticut, she said. Removal is “procedurally improper” under the forum defendant rule because the individual defendants are citizens of Connecticut, the forum state, she said.

Meta, on its behalf only, said removal is proper and the Connecticut federal court has diversity jurisdiction because the individual defendants were “fraudulently misjoined” in the action, Nagala said. Snap took no position on plaintiffs’ motion for remand. Nagala declined to apply the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine “in light of the uncertainty surrounding the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine, the narrow construction of the removal statute, and the constrained nature of federal subject matter jurisdiction generally.”

Plaintiffs’ claims against the social media companies include violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act for design defect and failure to warn; negligence; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and other torts under the state’s common law, the complaint said. Plaintiffs' brought claims of assault and battery against Sharp and Rodriguez.