![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2022\/03\/facebook-and-meta-logos-437802206-bigstock-580x387.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2022\/03\/facebook-and-meta-logos-437802206-bigstock-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>\nThe U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a bid by Meta\u2019s Facebook to scuttle a federal securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who accused the social media platform of misleading them about the misuse of its user data.<\/p>\n
The justices will hear arguments in Facebook\u2019s appeal of a lower court\u2019s decision allowing the 2018 class action led by Amalgamated Bank to proceed. It is one of two cases coming before them this month \u2013 the other one involving artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia \u2013 that could lead to rulings making it harder for private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks. They claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users.<\/p>\n
Facebook\u2019s stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump\u2019s successful U.S. presidential campaign in 2016. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Facebook stock held by the investors.<\/p>\n
At issue is whether Facebook broke the law when it failed to detail the prior data breach in subsequent business-risk disclosures, and instead portrayed the risk of such incidents as purely hypothetical.<\/p>\n
Facebook argued in a Supreme Court brief that it was not required to reveal that its warned-of risk had already materialized because \u201ca reasonable investor\u201d would understand risk disclosures to be forward-looking statements.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit in 2021 but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling revived it in 2023.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe problem is that Facebook represented the risk of improper access to or disclosure of Facebook user data as purely hypothetical when that exact risk had already transpired,\u201d Judge Margaret McKeown wrote in the 9th Circuit decision.<\/p>\n
A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.<\/p>\n
The Cambridge Analytica data breach prompted U.S. government investigations into Facebook\u2019s privacy practices, various lawsuits and a U.S. congressional hearing at which Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was grilled by lawmakers.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million. Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the Cambridge Analytica issue.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court on Nov. 13 is due to hear arguments in Nvidia\u2019s similar appeal to avoid a securities class action accusing it of misleading investors<\/a> about how much of its sales went to the volatile cryptocurrency industry.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court in prior rulings has limited the authority of the SEC, the federal agency that polices securities fraud. Its rulings in the Facebook and Nvidia cases now could make it more difficult for private litigants to hold companies liable for such conduct.<\/p>\n Topics<\/span> Lawsuits<\/a> USA<\/a> Fraud<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n