Lawsuits and legal proceedings over the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar span several forums at once. A $150 billion class action against Meta was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in April 2026. The Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar sits in deliberation at the International Court of Justice after merits hearings in January 2026. The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor has applied for an arrest warrant against Myanmar’s military chief. An Argentine judge has issued warrants for 25 Myanmar officials under universal jurisdiction, and complaints are pending in several other countries.
The Class Action Against Meta
In late 2021, two anonymous Rohingya plaintiffs sued Meta Platforms in federal court in San Francisco, seeking at least $150 billion in damages. The complaint alleged that Facebook’s algorithmic content delivery, introduced in 2009, amplified anti-Rohingya hate speech, and that the company failed to provide a Burmese-language reporting interface or employ enough Burmese-speaking moderators. It brought claims for strict products liability, negligence, negligent product design, and aiding and abetting other torts.1Courthouse News Service. Meta Beats Hate Speech Suit Over Role in Myanmar Genocide
The complaint accused Facebook of being “willing to trade the lives of the Rohingya people for better market penetration” and argued that Myanmar law, which lacks the liability protections U.S. law affords social media companies, should govern the case.2BBC News. Rohingya Sue Facebook for £150bn Over Myanmar Genocide
In January 2024, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that the claims were barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury.3Courthouse News Service. Meta Faces Appeal of $150 Billion Hate Speech Lawsuit Over Role in Myanmar Genocide The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that a discovery rule should have tolled the deadline because they were unaware of Facebook’s specific role until 2021. Meta responded that the clock began when the plaintiffs entered the United States and that they had failed to investigate.
The Ninth Circuit Ruling
On April 28, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal on different grounds. The court held that all of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet platforms from liability for user-posted content.4United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Doe 1 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 24-1672
Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the panel, acknowledged the harm alleged but said the law foreclosed the claims. “Section 230, as we have interpreted it, bars their claims, and we cannot hold Meta ‘responsible for the unfortunate realities of human nature,'” Nelson wrote. The panel also rejected the choice-of-law argument, finding Myanmar’s interest in protecting its citizens “insufficiently incorporated into the positive law of the country” to override federal immunity.5The Diplomat. US Court Dismisses Rohingya Hate Speech Lawsuit Against Meta
All three judges expressed discomfort with the result their own precedent required. Judges Marsha Berzon and William Fletcher wrote a concurrence arguing that prior decisions had “unduly expanded” Section 230 immunity, and urged the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider whether algorithmic recommendations should qualify as protected publishing conduct. Judge Nelson wrote separately that the court had “overread Section 230” and that its protections should extend only to traditional activities of publication and distribution.1Courthouse News Service. Meta Beats Hate Speech Suit Over Role in Myanmar Genocide The plaintiffs requested en banc rehearing. The court had not acted on that request as of mid-2026.6Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Law Blog. Ninth Circuit Panel Goes Out of Its Way to Question Section 230
The SEC Whistleblower Complaint
A separate track targets Meta through securities law. In January 2025, Rohingya survivor Maung Sawyeddollah, supported by Amnesty International, the Open Society Justice Initiative, and Victim Advocates International, filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.7Amnesty International. Rohingya Survivor Asks US Regulator to Investigate Meta’s Potential Role in Myanmar Atrocities
The complaint alleges Meta violated federal securities laws by misleading shareholders about its role in the genocide. It claims that between 2015 and 2017 Meta told investors its algorithms did not cause polarization, despite warnings from civil society organizations dating back to 2013 that Facebook was being used to foment violence in Myanmar. It also alleges Meta objected in 2015 and 2016 to shareholder proposals for human rights impact assessments and oversight committees.8Open Society Foundations. New SEC Complaint Says Meta Misled Shareholders Over Myanmar Hate The Open Society Justice Initiative described it as the first SEC filing centered on the Rohingya situation. No public outcome had been announced as of mid-2026.
The § 1782 Order Compelling Facebook Disclosure
In a related proceeding, on September 22, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui of the District of Columbia, acting on a request by The Gambia under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, ordered Facebook to produce content it had removed for hate speech violations along with internal investigation documents, for use in the ICJ genocide case.9Just Security. Q&A on Court Ordering Facebook to Disclose Content on Myanmar Genocide
Facebook had initially refused. The court ruled that content removed for terms-of-service violations falls outside the Stored Communications Act, reasoning that the statute was meant to help platforms flourish, not shield them from lawful discovery. The judge also found much of the content in private Facebook groups was functionally public because the groups were often accessible to anyone and the posts were intended for wide dissemination.10EJIL Talk. The Gambia v Facebook: Obtaining Evidence for Use at the International Court of Justice
The Gambia v. Myanmar at the ICJ
The broadest proceeding is the genocide case The Gambia filed against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice on November 11, 2019, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.11Jus Mundi. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)
The case has moved through several stages:
- Provisional measures in January 2020 ordering Myanmar to prevent acts of genocide, restrain its military, preserve evidence, and file regular compliance reports.
- A July 2022 ruling rejecting Myanmar’s preliminary objections and affirming The Gambia’s standing under the Convention’s common interest.
- Interventions by eleven states: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the Maldives, Slovenia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belgium, and Ireland.
- Public merits hearings from January 12 to 29, 2026, with two rounds of oral argument, three witnesses and one expert called by The Gambia, and one witness called by Myanmar.
The ICJ entered deliberation on January 29, 2026, with a final judgment to be delivered at a date “to be announced in due course.”12Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. ICJ: The Gambia v. Myanmar
Myanmar’s representation before the court has been contested. After the February 2021 coup, Myanmar’s National Unity Government, formed by ousted lawmakers, asserted it is the sole legitimate representative of Myanmar at the ICJ, accepted the court’s jurisdiction, and withdrew all preliminary objections the military junta had previously submitted.13Mizzima. NUG Asserts Legitimacy as Myanmar’s Representative at the ICJ
The ICC Investigation and Arrest Warrant Application
The International Criminal Court authorized a formal investigation on November 14, 2019, into crimes committed against the Rohingya. Although Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC asserted jurisdiction because the alleged crime of deportation was completed on the territory of Bangladesh, which is a state party. The investigation covers alleged crimes against humanity, including deportation and persecution, committed on or after June 1, 2010.14International Criminal Court. Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar
On November 27, 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan filed an application for an arrest warrant against Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Myanmar’s military commander-in-chief and acting president, for crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. The application remains pending before Pre-Trial Chamber I. As of mid-2026, the judges had not publicly ruled on the request.15International Crisis Group. Myanmar’s New Administration: Military Consolidation, Not Transition
Universal Jurisdiction Cases in National Courts
Several countries have opened or considered criminal cases against Myanmar officials under universal jurisdiction, which allows national courts to prosecute serious international crimes regardless of where they occurred.
The most advanced is in Argentina. The Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK filed a petition in November 2019, and an Argentine federal court began investigations in November 2021. On February 13, 2025, Judge Marìa Romilda Servini de Cubria issued arrest warrants for 25 Myanmar military and civilian officials, including Min Aung Hlaing and Deputy Commander-in-Chief Soe Win.16Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK. Argentina Myanmar Universal Jurisdiction Q&A Update
In the United Kingdom, the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command is identifying witnesses and examining alleged crimes. Criminal complaints have been filed in Australia (October 2025), Indonesia (April 2026), Timor-Leste (January 2026), Turkey (March 2022), and the Philippines (October 2023). Germany declined to open an investigation after a January 2023 complaint, citing the absence of suspects on German territory.17Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. Universal Jurisdiction
The UN Evidence Mechanism Behind the Cases
Feeding these proceedings is the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, which collects and preserves evidence for national and international courts. By August 2025, the IIMM had gathered evidence from more than 1,300 sources, including over 600 eyewitness accounts, along with photographs, videos, geospatial imagery, social media posts, and forensic evidence. Its work covers torture, detention and abuse of children, summary executions, and the military’s aerial attacks on civilian targets such as schools, hospitals, and monasteries.18UN Office at Geneva. Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar Press Conference
The Mechanism shares evidence with the ICC, the ICJ, and national courts in Argentina and the United Kingdom. In February 2026 it published a bulletin detailing its support for the ICJ merits hearings, and in May 2026 it concluded a judicial cooperation agreement with France.19Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. IIMM Homepage It is operating at 73% of its annual budget after losing grants from the United States and other countries, a shortfall that threatens the closure of its open-source investigation unit and its gender-based violence and sexual crimes unit.18UN Office at Geneva. Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar Press Conference