In a significant legal victory for social media companies, a California state judge has dismissed claims brought by over 600 school districts against Meta Platforms Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc., and Google LLC. The school districts alleged that these companies' platforms are addictive and harmful to youths, leading to increased education costs and other societal harms. This ruling highlights the complexities of holding tech giants accountable for the impact of their platforms on young users.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who presided over the case, emphasized the need for limits on liability. She stated, "Holding companies responsible for emotional harm inflicted on individuals and subsequent disruptive actions would open the door to endless litigation." The school districts had argued that the social media platforms were engineered to hook young users, drawing parallels to how cigarette manufacturers designed addictive products. They claimed that features like the 'like' button contributed to this addiction, resulting in significant resource expenditure to address the fallout, including property damage from challenges circulated on these platforms.
The social media companies countered these claims by asserting that they could not be held responsible for third-party content. Meta Platforms Inc. expressed satisfaction with the ruling, reiterating their commitment to supporting young people and their families. Google, TikTok, and Snap did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The cases, known collectively as a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding, involve plaintiffs from 34 states, with 617 school district plaintiffs as of May 9, 2023. The districts expressed disappointment with the decision and are considering appellate options. Judge Kuhl acknowledged the steep odds the districts faced using the public nuisance legal theory, noting that the districts do not experience social media addiction themselves and the addiction does not physically injure them. She also pointed out that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields online publishers from content-based lawsuits, would not allow this novel twist on common law to proceed.
Expanding the public nuisance theory to allow school districts to sue despite being indirectly affected by the negative consequences of social media for youth would create a broad web of indeterminate liability, Kuhl wrote. A federal judge in Oakland is currently overseeing hundreds of similar cases and is expected to rule soon.
Beyond the school district cases, judges in Los Angeles and Oakland are also presiding over personal injury suits by youths and families alleging that social media companies are responsible for causing widespread psychological distress and even suicides. Some claims have been allowed to proceed, while others have been dismissed. The companies have denied wrongdoing, stating that they have taken steps to keep young users safe on their platforms.
The state case is Social Media Cases JCCP 22STCV21355, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.
This ruling underscores the challenges of holding social media companies accountable under current legal frameworks. As the debate over the impact of social media on youth continues, this case may set a precedent for future litigation involving tech giants and their responsibility towards young users.
