540 F.Supp.3d 1129
M.D. Fla.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are former Cognizant employees who performed Facebook content-moderation work and brought a putative class action on behalf of Florida and Arizona moderators, alleging increased risk of PTSD and other injuries from repeated exposure to graphic content.
- Plaintiffs allege Cognizant concealed the risks (no psychological screening, inadequate counseling, broad NDAs) and that Facebook set demanding policies and supplied oversight/equipment; both allegedly failed to follow industry best practices for moderator safety.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: Cognizant also moved to compel arbitration for three named plaintiffs (those claims were stayed); Facebook and Cognizant challenged personal jurisdiction for Arizona plaintiffs and the sufficiency of all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Key legal theories pleaded: fraudulent concealment against Cognizant; negligence (retained control / unsafe equipment) against Facebook; FDUTPA for deceptive/unfair acts; a request for a medical-monitoring remedy; and request for FDUTPA attorneys’ fees.
- The Court accepted the amended-complaint facts as true for Rule 12 purposes, considered personal-jurisdiction law and pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal, Rule 9(b)), and resolved the motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Arizona plaintiffs | Named Arizona plaintiffs say nationwide-class posture should not require Florida contacts for jurisdiction | Defendants argue named nonresidents must show Florida-specific jurisdictional contacts; Arizona claims arise from Arizona/Phoenix site | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (Arizona plaintiffs) |
| Fraudulent concealment (Count I) | Cognizant concealed material dangers and used NDAs to hide risks | Defendants contend allegations are conclusory, lack particularity under Rule 9(b), and plaintiffs had access to public research (no concealment) | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity and failure to allege duty/reliance |
| Negligence / negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts II & III) | Facebook’s supervision/equipment exposed plaintiffs to risk of psychological harm; retained control and unsafe-equipment theories create duty | Defendants emphasize Florida impact rule and lack of physical impact or applicable exception | Dismissed with prejudice: plaintiffs failed to plead required physical impact or applicable exception |
| FDUTPA claim (Count IV) | Defendants’ job advertising, concealment, and practices were deceptive/unfair | Defendants argue FDUTPA excludes personal-injury claims and plaintiffs did not allege consumer-directed deception | Dismissed with prejudice: FDUTPA bars personal injury claims and no consumer deception pleaded |
| Medical monitoring remedy | Plaintiffs seek court-ordered fund for screening/treatment based on elevated risk | Defendants argue no precedent for medical monitoring for psychological injuries and pleading lacks required elements (e.g., proven hazardous substance, screening protocol) | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead elements (and medical-monitoring for PTSD-type injuries unsupported) |
| Attorneys’ fees under FDUTPA | Plaintiffs claim prevailing-party fees via a related California settlement | Defendants note no Florida judgment here; statute requires prevailing after judgment in this litigation | Denied without prejudice: no judgment in this action (and case dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 953 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2020) (discusses personal jurisdiction for unnamed class members)
- Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (same point re: unnamed class members)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2018) (limits specific jurisdiction over claims by nonresidents)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarifies "arise out of or relate to" test for specific jurisdiction)
- Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2018) (Florida long-arm and Due Process analysis)
- Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) (general jurisdiction limits)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (corporate "at home" standard for general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction principles)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (three-part specific jurisdiction test)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015) (elements of fraudulent concealment under Florida law)
- Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1995) (Florida impact rule for emotional-distress negligence)
- Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 930 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (medical-monitoring claim elements)