McFall v. Meta Platforms CA1/4

Filed 9/11/25 McFall v. Meta Platforms CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

ANIKA MCFALL, A172022 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (San Mateo County META PLATFORMS, INC. et al. Super. Ct. No. 24CIV00368)

Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This dispute arises from the hacking of Anika McFall’s Instagram account and the actions defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively Meta) took or failed to take in response. The trial court sustained without leave to amend Meta’s demurrer to McFall’s first amended complaint (complaint). We affirm. McFall is a social media influencer who used Instagram, a digital platform owned by Meta, in connection with her work. According to the complaint, hackers gained access to one of McFall’s Instagram accounts along with money linked to the account. They deleted the account’s contents and attempted to pressure her into compensating them to restore the account.

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.

1

McFall filed a report with the Los Angeles Police Department and worked with law enforcement to try to preserve and recover her account. McFall also reported the issue to Meta but alleges that Meta failed to investigate, resolve, or provide any redress for the matter. The complaint asserts two causes of action, the first for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and the second for negligence. Meta demurred to the complaint and requested that the court take judicial notice of the Instagram terms of use (TOU), which include provisions stating that Meta provided the service “ ‘as is,’ ” could not guarantee that it would be safe and secure, would not be responsible for the actions of third parties, and would not be responsible for “any lost profits, revenues, information, or data” arising out of or related to the TOU. The court granted the unopposed request for judicial notice and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. It held that the TOU precluded McFall’s claims because the TOU disclaimed all warranties to the extent permitted by law and all liability for third party conduct. The court also found that McFall failed to allege any duty of care independent of the TOU. On appeal, McFall does not challenge the trial court’s ruling with respect to the claim for breach of the implied covenant, but asserts that it erred in sustaining Meta’s demurrer to her claim for negligence.2 However, it is a “cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial