816 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 71:813 Facebook has been transformed into a “tool[] . . . being used for harm . . . for fake news, foreign interference with elections, and hate speech.”9 Misuse of Facebook’s platform by authoritarian regimes has led to serious human rights abuses.10 In Myanmar, government disinformation and hate campaigns on Facebook contributed to the deaths of approximately 25,000 people, the displacement of approximately 100,000 people, and numerous incidents of rape, terror, and forced labor, as stated in the Report of the Independent International Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar (the “Report”).11 The United Nations (U.N.) Independent Fact-Finding Mission in Myanmar found that many actions by the Tatmadaw military “amount[ed] to the gravest crimes under international law.”12 While Facebook has promoted free speech and freedom of association in oppressive nations, autocrats have weaponized the platform, suppressing dissidents and inciting violence through hate speech. Corporate liability for human rights abuses has long been a murky area of domestic and international law.13 Victims seeking redress for corporate abuses of human rights face challenging obstacles.14 International frameworks for corporate liability are mostly non-binding, aspirational guidelines.15 Further, to date, no international criminal tribunal wields jurisdictional authority over corporations such as Facebook.16 Applying corporate liability laws to social media companies further complicates the analysis, as prior to Zuckerberg’s surprising admission of responsibility at the above-mentioned Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, social media companies, including Facebook, claimed that they were not responsible for the content their users post.17 At first glance, the concept of holding a social media company liable for enabling human rights abuses appears idealistic and practically impossible. Many in-house company lawyers and compliance officers, though aware of 9. Alana Abramson, Mark Zuckerberg’s Status Update to Congress: “I’m Sorry,” FORTUNE (Apr. 9, 2018), https://fortune.com/2018/04/09/mark-zuckerberg-sorry-statement-congress/. 10. Yael Grauer, Facebook Is Not Equipped to Stop the Spread of Authoritarianism, TECHCRUNCH (Dec. 24, 2018, 6:30 AM), https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/24/facebook-government-silence-dissentauthoritarianism/. 11. Human Rights Council, Rep. of the Indep. Int’l Fact-Finding Mission on Myan., U.N. Doc. A/HRC/39/64, at 13 (2018) [hereinafter Report]. 12. Report, supra note 11, at 19. The Tatmadaw military is the official name of the armed forces in Myanmar. Id. at 4 (“The Tatmadaw has the right to administer and adjudicate its affairs independently, without civilian oversight.”). 13. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, addressed the complexity of corporate liability. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386, 1406 (2018) (“That the corporate form can be an instrument for inflicting grave harm and suffering poses serious and complex questions for the international community and for Congress.”). 14. David Scheffer, Corporate Liability under the Rome Statute, 57 HARV. INT’L L.J. 35, 35 (2016). 15. See, e.g., The Ten Principles of the U.N. Global Compact, UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL COMPACT, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (last visited Mar. 20, 2020); OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMM’R, GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: IMPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS “PROTECT, RESPECT AND REMEDY” FRAMEWORK 25–26 (2011). 16. Scheffer, supra note 14, at 35. 17. See Weinberger, supra note 4.