[ad_1]
- Mark Zuckerberg is trying to avoid personal liability in a lawsuit over his child’s social media addiction.
- Although there are exceptions, corporate law generally protects management from personal liability.
- Even if Mr. Zuckerberg is personally removed from the lawsuit, the case against Mr. Mehta will not be dismissed.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has insisted that his company’s platform cannot be held personally responsible for accusations that it led children to become addicted to social media. There may be some truth to that.
NBC Bay Area reported that Zuckerberg’s lawyers this week accused Mehta and Mehta personally of Zuckerberg’s actions and how Mehta harmed children by creating social media addiction. NBC Bay Area reported that he has gone to court over a series of lawsuits brought privately by parents and schools over his actions.
Mr. Zuckerberg personally requested that he withdraw from two dozen lawsuits filed by people in more than a dozen states. A ruling in the billionaire’s favor would relieve him of personal liability, but it would not dismiss the case against Mehta.
The lawsuit alleges that Zuckerberg’s actions and inactions led to social media addiction and accuses him of ignoring warnings that Facebook and Instagram are not safe for children.
In court records reviewed by Business Insider, Zuckerberg’s lawyers wrote that “individuals cannot be held personally liable for the acts or omissions of a company solely by virtue of their status as an executive, director, or shareholder of a company.” “The basic principle is that we cannot be compromised,” he said.
Zuckerberg’s lawyers reiterated their argument in court Friday, saying there is a clear difference between Zuckerberg’s personal responsibilities and his role as CEO, NBC Bay Area reported.
Zuckerberg’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Bloomberg noted Friday that corporate law generally shields executives from personal liability.
According to an article by law firm Oberheiden PC, the “corporate veil” generally refers to the distinction between a corporation and its owners, but in most situations it protects management, although there are exceptions.
Situations in which management may be held liable include criminal acts and intentional or grossly negligent violations. They could also be held liable in lawsuits brought by third parties against CEOs, Oberheiden PC wrote, noting that “in these cases, plaintiffs are accused of corporate conduct (or “We’re not trying to hold CEOs accountable for what they call “representatives,” but instead they’re trying to hold companies accountable for their actions.” CEOs in their respective positions. ”
In other words, a civil lawsuit is filed over actions taken personally by the CEO.
The plaintiffs argued in court that Mr. Zuckerberg had a duty to publicly share his findings on the risks of social media to children, but U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers seemed skeptical of that argument. That’s what Bloomberg reported.
However, the media reported that the judge suggested that the CEO could be held liable for concealing the information if it was determined that Meta had a duty to disclose that information.
“If Mark Zuckerberg knew how deeply children are harmed on a daily basis by accessing and becoming addicted to the platforms he is responsible for, and would do anything to redress those harms, If he fails to take meaningful and important action, he should be held personally accountable,” said Titania Jordan of Burke Technologies, an online safety and parental control company. told NBC Bay Area.
She added, “If he can claim plausible deniability, or if he realized this and directed his team to improve and increase safety, and they failed to do so, then that’s the company’s fault.” It’s a responsibility,” he added.
If Mr. Zuckerberg is found personally liable, it could have major implications for other lawsuits filed against CEOs of social media giants.
[ad_2]
Source link
