In a legal showdown that could reshape the landscape of social media liability, attorney Marc Trent is spearheading a high-profile lawsuit against Meta and the "Are We Dating the Same Guy" Facebook groups. The case, which centers on allegations of defamation and privacy invasion, challenges the protections afforded to tech giants under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. With court hearings scheduled for mid-2025, the outcome could set a precedent for how social media platforms are held accountable, especially in the wake of Meta's 2024 earnings report, which highlighted a 15% increase in ad revenue driven by algorithmic engagement. In an exclusive interview conducted on March 13, 2025, Trent shared his insights on the legal hurdles, the role of Meta's algorithms, and the broader societal implications of the case, urging immediate action to address the harms caused by unchecked tech power.
The Origins of the Lawsuit: A Simple Request Turned Complex
The lawsuit began with a seemingly straightforward goal: to remove a defamatory post about Trent's client from a private Facebook group. "Our original intent wasn't even to get into massive litigation with Meta or with her," Trent explained. "We just wanted her to take the post down for our client." However, when the poster refused to comply—despite cease-and-desist letters and even misleading Trent about removing the content—the case escalated. Meta was included in the lawsuit for legal reasons, but Trent assumed the company would quickly distance itself by removing the post. "That's not the case," he said. "And then the media grabbed hold of it, and it took off from there."
The lawsuit has since evolved into a broader challenge against Meta's Section 230 immunity, a statute that has long shielded social media platforms from liability for user-generated content. Following the 2024 congressional hearings on social media regulation, where lawmakers debated reforming Section 230 to address algorithmic harms, Trent sees this as the most significant legal hurdle. "The statute itself is very difficult to overcome," he noted. "Meta always relies on the statute. Judges fall back on the statute." He believes that many judges struggle to understand the technical complexities of algorithms and content monetization, which complicates efforts to hold Meta accountable. "They say they're acting basically as a town square, an independent forum, which simply is probably not the case," Trent argued.
Defamation and Privacy Invasion: The Line Between Opinion and Harm
At the heart of the lawsuit are specific posts that Trent argues cross the line from opinion to actionable defamation. One particularly egregious example involved a post falsely accusing his client of being a convicted rapist, accompanied by a mugshot of another individual with similar features. "That is obviously the single most egregious thing that they did regarding defamation," Trent said. Such accusations, he contends, are not only defamatory but also invade his client's privacy, causing significant harm. For parents concerned about teen mental health, these posts highlight the dangers of unchecked online spaces, where false accusations can spread rapidly and harm reputations irreparably.
The "Are We Dating the Same Guy" groups, where these posts appeared, were ostensibly created to help women navigate dating safely. Trent acknowledges that there may be some merit to their original purpose, such as alerting women to potential cheaters or violent partners. However, he believes this purpose has been overshadowed by abuse. "For a lot of [users], this is pure entertainment," he said. "They're accusing men of having STDs that don't have STDs. They're accusing men of forcing women to have abortions that never did that." He added that the harm extends beyond online posts, with users allegedly contacting family members and employers to amplify the damage. "They're facilitating having people contact their bosses, their employers, to take the harm even further," Trent explained. For example, victims have reported losing job opportunities after employers received anonymous messages, a trend that has surged in 2025 amid rising online vigilantism.
Meta's Algorithms: From Editing to Creating Content
A key argument in Trent's case is that Meta's algorithms play an active role in amplifying harmful content, thereby limiting the company's Section 230 immunity. Following Frances Haugen's 2021 testimony and subsequent 2024 whistleblower reports detailing Meta's algorithmic manipulation, Trent's lawsuit gains new urgency. He traced the origins of Section 230 to the 1990s, when internet forums like Prodigy faced lawsuits over user posts. At the time, the law was designed to protect nascent internet companies from liability to encourage growth. "There were no algorithms. There was no implementation of AI," Trent said. "The concern back then was that [internet] growth would be stymied."
Today, however, Trent argues that Meta's algorithms have evolved far beyond mere content editing. "When the algorithms are involved with story bumping (keeping posts at the top of feeds for engagement) and doing things like that, we're getting out of the realm of editing content," he said. In his client's case, for example, a defamatory post remained at the top of the group's feed due to Meta's algorithms, which Trent believes were driven by monetization opportunities tied to the case's media attention. "Their algorithms are so advanced now to the point that they're story bumping, they're monetizing, they're utilizing other people's intellectual property, and they're creating and developing content," he explained. This, he contends, is an exception to Section 230 protections, as Meta is no longer merely hosting user content but actively shaping and promoting it—a practice that has drawn scrutiny in 2025 as regulators debate new AI accountability laws.
Beyond Compensation: A Push for Systemic Change
While monetary compensation is a goal of the lawsuit—Trent emphasized that "my client's been damaged, and he needs to be satisfied for those damages"—the case is about more than money. "We want to fundamentally change the internet," he said. "We think we have an opportunity to fundamentally change the internet that big tech is riding on Americans, taking advantage of Americans." For policymakers debating tech regulation, Trent's lawsuit underscores the need for immediate reforms to address algorithmic harms. He pointed to whistleblower revelations and studies showing the negative impacts of social media, particularly on young women and teens. "There are indicators that young women, especially girls under 18, are committing suicide, pre-teens and teens are going into depression," he noted. "They're manipulating our behavior."
Trent believes that Meta's practices, including its use of algorithms to drive engagement, contribute to these societal harms. "An internal Facebook study came out indicating that 60% of all people that joined [extremist groups] were facilitated to do that by Facebook's algorithms," he said. With upcoming court dates in mid-2025, Trent hopes the lawsuit will force Meta to change how its algorithms function, ensuring they no longer create or develop content in ways that harm users. "We want to hit big tech where it hurts—in the pocketbook," he said, "and to change the internet, in a sense, altogether for what we currently know." For parents, this means safer online spaces for their children; for regulators, it means a chance to set new standards before the 2026 midterms, when tech policy is expected to dominate campaigns.
David vs. Goliath: Taking on a Tech Giant
The lawsuit pits Trent's firm against Meta, a company with vast resources and influence. To prepare for this challenge, Trent has enlisted the expertise of Gary Feinerman, a former federal judge, and has leveraged his firm's technological capabilities. "Our firm has really evolved," he said. "We have a great team—project managers, everything related to AI now. Even Meta can't beat us." He believes that advancements in technology are leveling the playing field, especially as AI accountability becomes a hot topic in 2025. "If you did read our motion to dismiss, we utilized our tech team to draft it, and Mark Zuckerberg, everybody else was shocked," he said. "The David versus Goliath dynamic is changing because of technical change, and it's changing extremely fast."
Despite these efforts, Trent acknowledges the broader challenges of holding Meta accountable. He pointed to the influence of tech companies on politics, noting that "there's a lot of political contributions by these companies" that deter politicians from enacting meaningful change. "The American people are the ones that are being harmed," he said. "People are getting emotionally damaged, psychologically harmed, in our opinion, and whistleblowers are coming out, and all they do is silence the whistleblowers." With tech policy expected to dominate the 2026 midterm elections, Trent's lawsuit could galvanize public demand for reform, making it a critical moment for action.
A Case Beyond Dating: Redefining Social Media Liability
While the lawsuit began with a dating-related post, Trent emphasized that its implications extend far beyond personal relationships. "Everyone thought this was a case about dating, and ultimately, at the onset, it was much more than that," he said. "It was always about Meta and Section 230 and defamation at the end of the day." He hopes the case will set a precedent for holding social media platforms accountable for the content they promote, particularly when algorithms play an active role in amplifying harm—a concern echoed in recent 2025 regulatory proposals.
Even if the lawsuit does not succeed in the courts, Trent believes it will spark broader conversations. "At some point, if you can't win in the courts, the politicians are going to have to step in," he said. However, he remains skeptical of political action given the influence of tech companies. "Where's this going to go? The people that are being harmed are the ones that need to push for change now," he concluded, emphasizing the urgency of public action ahead of the 2025 court hearings and the 2026 elections.
As the legal battle unfolds, Trent's case against Meta serves as a stark reminder of the tensions between free speech, user safety, and corporate accountability in the digital age. For parents, it's a call to protect their children from online harms; for policymakers, it's a chance to act before tech policy dominates the 2026 midterms; and for the public, it's a moment to demand change. With upcoming court dates in mid-2025, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of social media liability, making this lawsuit a critical turning point in the fight for a safer, more accountable internet.
