A new lawsuit accuses Mark Zuckerberg and other executives and directors of Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) of failing to do enough to combat sex trafficking and child sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram.
The complaint, made public late Monday by several pension and investment funds that own Meta stock, claimed that Meta’s leadership and board failed to protect the company’s and shareholders’ interests by ignoring “systemic evidence” of criminal activity.
Given the board’s failure to explain how it attempts to address the issue, “the only logical inference is that the board has consciously decided to permit Meta’s platforms to promote and facilitate sex/human trafficking,” according to the complaint.
The basis for the lawsuit, which was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, was rejected by Meta.
“We categorically prohibit human exploitation and child sexual exploitation,” it said in a statement on Tuesday. “The allegations in this lawsuit misrepresent our efforts to combat this type of behavior. Our goal is to prevent people from using our platform to exploit others.”
In 2019, Meta’s billionaire co-founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, told Congress that child exploitation was “one of the most serious threats that we focus on.”
Meta, based in Menlo Park, California, has long been accused of being a haven for sexual misconduct.
The Texas Supreme Court granted three people who became involved with their abusers through Facebook the right to sue in June 2021, ruling that Facebook was not a “lawless no-man’s-land” immune from liability for human trafficking.
Meta is also facing hundreds of lawsuits from families of teenagers and younger children who claim to have suffered mental health problems as a result of their addiction to Facebook and Instagram. Some school districts have also filed lawsuits in response to the issue.
The lawsuit filed on Monday is a derivative case in which shareholders sue officers and directors who allegedly breached their duties.
Instead of being paid to shareholders, damages are paid to the company, often by the officers’ and directors’ insurers.
Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island et al v Zuckerberg et al, Delaware Chancery Court, No. 2023-0304
