A number of people who worked as "content moderators" for the social media platform Facebook are suing their former employers and Facebook/Meta claiming they suffered serious psychological injuries from being exposed to graphic and violent content.
The cases have been brought in the High Court because Meta, which operates Facebook, has its European headquarters in Dublin.
One of the cases was brought by a man who worked for German company CCC Essen Digital Gmbh between 2018 and 2019 in Essen under a contract of employment to which Meta was not a party but merely outsourced the work to CCC.
That case and two others with similar claims by the plaintiffs, who also did not work in Ireland, were considered by the High Court as representatives for deciding whether Ireland was the correct jurisdiction for hearing the personal injury claims.
While these three were chosen as representative, it was on the understanding that they were not binding directly on the remaining cases but that these cases would provide some assistance in the resolution of the balance of the actions.
All three people were content moderators, later called "subject-matter experts", who ensured compliance with Meta/Facebook’s implementation standards for online content.
In a ruling relating to whether CCC should make discovery of certain documents for the purpose of the court dealing with the jurisdictional issue, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley refused the discovery sought.
Referring to the first plaintiff’s proceedings, the judge said this case was against both the employing company (CCC) and Meta as it was claimed that Meta was the "anchor defendant" for the purposes of meeting the criteria under which jurisdiction in the EU certain civil cases can be heard.
It is alleged that, by reason of the unique and comprehensive degree of control which Meta/Facebook exercised over the system of work implemented by CCC Essen, it has a liability where there is alleged negligence in respect of the injuries suffered in the course of the plaintiff’s work.
As part of his case, the man sought discovery of documents from CCC, including the contracts governing the relationship between CCC and Meta and documents on any associated policies and procedures governing what content moderation was.
CCC opposed the application.
The judge said that having regard to the applicable legal principles relating to the exercise of what the authorities suggest is an exceptional jurisdiction, he considered that the discovery sought by the plaintiff, at this juncture, was not necessary for the fair disposal of the jurisdictional issue.
The full hearing of the jurisdictional issue is yet to take place.
