Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Putative class action against Meta over ‘bricked’ device will proceed in part, (Jul 17, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

A judge dismissed some, but not all, claims involving the Meta Portal’s loss of functionality and granted leave to amend.

The federal district court in San Francisco dismissed state consumer protection law claims against Meta Platforms, Inc., over alleged loss of functionality in its Portal devices, saying consumers bringing a putative class action failed to show what misrepresentations or omissions they relied upon. But the dismissal included leave to amend, and the court allowed claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to go forward (Shipley v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03324-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2026)).

Background. Meta launched the Meta Portal in the fall of 2018, advertising it as a “functional hands-free video calling and streaming device” that supported auto-zooming video chat, music and video streaming, and voice command features, according to the ruling in the case. The device became “particularly popular” during the COVID-19 pandemic, with millions of units sold, but Meta ultimately announced in 2022 it would discontinue the devices.

The company continued to sell the Meta Portal at a lower price and “continued to tout its same purported features, but by mid-2023 began “bricking” it—reducing its functionality to that of a brick—by removing applications and functionality, which continued through 2025. The consumers allege that while Meta sold the Portal, it “uniformly omitted at the point of purchase” that the software could stop working well before the hardware, advertising many of its features as “built-in.” But the company failed to issue any refunds to consumers, despite the product becoming “now largely useless” and selling at a “high price point.”

The consumers filed a putative class action over the issue on April 14, 2025 and have since amended their complaint several times. Meta moved to dismiss.

Evidentiary issues. In support of its motion to dismiss, Meta attached a declaration from attorney Bambo Obaro as well as hyperlinks to screenshots of its Limited Consumer Warranty and Terms of Service documents on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Obaro also provided photographs of the exterior of the Portal boxes.

The consumers moved to exclude those exhibits saying they were not properly authenticated and should not be subject to judicial notice. The consumers argued Obaro would not have firsthand knowledge of the documents submitted, but the court noted that Obaro sourced the documents from the Wayback Machine—which hosts archives of website—and packaging in the consumers’ possession. The consumers failed to put forth arguments for why the exhibits would not be reliable, the court found, declining to exclude the materials.

Additionally, to exclude the product packaging would be a “death knell to the viability of these claims,” since many claims hinge on representations made to consumers there, according to the ruling.

State consumer protection law claims. The consumers brought claims on behalf of various state and national classes for violations of state consumer protection laws, including sections sections (a)(5) and (a)(16) of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), section 349 of New York’s General Business Law, and section 505/2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”). The parties agree that California law governs for purposes of the motion to dismiss and that the claims under Illinois and New York law are substantially similar to the CLRA claims, according to the ruling.

Meta argued the consumers failed to allege a pre-purchase misrepresentation, failed to show an actionable omission, and failed to allege consumer reliance and causation.

The SAC points to representations Meta made in marketing the Portal, including advertising features like “Alexa Built-In,” “hands-free video calling,” and compatibility with third-party apps and services. Meta argued these do not constitute pre-purchase misrepresentation, since the parties do not dispute that the services were available during the warranty period and several years after that nor do they claim any representation features would be available indefinitely.

The side of the box indicated that “Features, functionality and content are subject to change or withdrawal at any time,” and Meta argued that Ninth Circuit caselaw holds such representations can “ameliorate any tendency of the label to mislead.” But the consumers argue that Meta represented that certain features could not be taken away because they were “built-in” to the product and said the question of whether a reasonable consumer would be misled isn’t appropriate for the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court found the term built-in “plausibly conveys to a reasonable consumer that a feature is permanent or irrevocable” and that while the side panel might ultimately persuade a finder of fact that the packaging is not misleading, that doesn’t create a basis for dismissal at this stage. Similarly, the consumers have “sufficiently alleged enough facts to give rise to an omission theory,” the court found, based on the argument Meta omitted the fact that it could strip the Portal’s advertised uses before the end of its natural life.

Under the state consumer protection laws, the consumers are also required to plead they relied on Meta’s alleged misrepresentations or omissions. Previously, the judge dismissed with leave to amend the state law claims, saying they did “not identify any particular advertisement or sales materials they even saw before purchasing the Portal.” The SAC added detail about what motivated the named plaintiffs to buy the device. But the court found they still failed to provide sufficient information about what specific advertisements and information they viewed and what representations they relied on. “While plaintiffs are close, more needs to be alleged to survive Rule 9(b)’s threshold,” according to the ruling, which again dismissed the state consumer law claims with leave to amend within 20 days.

Unfair Competition Law claims. The consumers also allege violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Each of those is treated as a separate claim.

The “unlawful” and “fraudulent” claims fail because the consumers failed so far to show violation of the consumer protection laws upon which they rely, the court found. The court previously ruled that the consumers met the threshold for the “unfair” prong but Meta had urged the court to reconsider. Meta argued that the “unfair” prong cannot stand under Northern California precedent if the other prongs fail, while the consumers argued Ninth Circuit precedent holds just the opposite.

The court found that the “unfair” practices claim hinges on the “bricking” of the device rather than just claims about misrepresentations and omissions. Meta argued that loss of functionality outside a warranty period doesn’t give rise to an “unfair” claim, but the court found that the caselaw it cited pertains to defects, while the consumers here point to “Meta’s decision to disable core functionalities of the Portal that were marketed as integral to the product.” While the warranty and related “policy implications” may have bearing later on, including summary judgment, the consumers have pleaded enough to proceed at this stage, the court found.

Breach of contract. The SAC also includes a breach of contract claim, including “both a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Meta argues the SAC doesn’t allege any contractual obligation it’s said to have breached and that even if it did, the company acted within its rights.

The consumers argue they entered into a contract when they bought the devices, with Meta promising certain built-in features. But, noting that marketing and advertising are typically not treated as offers but merely invitations to bargain, the court found no contractual provision alleged to have been breached and dismissed the claim.

With regard to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, Meta also argued the consumers failed to identify a relevant contract or terms, but the court found that because the company “plausibly stripped Plaintiffs of the reasonably-expected benefits of the Portals they purchased,” the claim is sufficiently pleaded to proceed at this stage.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-03324-WHO.

Judge: Orrick, W.

Attorneys: Annick Marie Persinger (Tycko & Zavareei LLP) for Elizabeth Shipley. Bambo Obaro (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP) for Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platform Technologies, LLC.

Companies: Meta Platforms, Inc.; Meta Platform Technologies, LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews