Bay Area Judge Rules Meta, Google, TikTok Must Face Schools’ Abuse Claims – East Bay Times

By Isaiah Poritz | Bloomberg

Meta Platforms Inc., Google, TikTok and Snap will have to face off lawsuits brought by school districts in federal court blame theirs “addictive” apps for contributing to a mental health crisis among students.

The ruling Thursday by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, Calif., follows a contrasting June 7 ruling by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in favor of the companies. The split leaves the platforms potentially on the hook for damages in more than 150 cases before Rogers even as they stand to avoid liability for claims in more than 600 other cases filed in Los Angeles.

Rogers generally denied a motion to dismiss the negligence claims, but limited the scope of allegations that will proceed. She concluded that some claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a longstanding federal law that shields Internet companies from lawsuits.

Google and Meta spokespeople denied wrongdoing and said their companies have taken steps to keep young users safe on the platforms. Snap also cited its safety initiatives and pointed to research showing its Snapchat has a positive impact on users’ well-being. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

FAMILY: He prosecuted child sex predators. Now he’s going after Meta for allegedly enabling them

The decision comes just over a week after Rogers ruled that Meta must face a lawsuit by dozens of state prosecutors who allege it knowingly hooked children on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. TikTok faces similar claims from a coalition of states. Both companies have denied wrongdoing.

The companies also face significant exposure from hundreds of personal injury suits that accuse them of designing their platforms to encourage young people to spend unhealthy amounts of time on screens. But the school drops could carry greater potential financial damage as each district tries to recoup institutional costs from the negative consequences of having hundreds of individual students caught up in social media.

The school districts argued that the companies engineered their platforms to be addictive to children by using algorithms and features like the “like” button, in ways that harm society — similar to cigarette makers who designed their products to be addictive.

“Compulsive Use”

Rogers said the schools’ basic legal theory was actionable: the social media companies “deliberately encouraged coercive use of their platforms which predictably caused” school districts to spend resources fighting the mental health crisis among students.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the allegations are not true.

“Working with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we’ve built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences and parents with robust controls,” Castaneda said.

A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement that the company disagrees with the court’s decision.

“We’ve developed many tools to support parents and teens, and we recently announced that we’re significantly changing the Instagram experience for tens of millions of teens with new Teen Accounts, a protected experience for teens that automatically limits who can contact them and the content they see” , according to the statement.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as a victory “for schools, teachers and administrators who are on the front lines of the nation’s youth mental health crisis.”

“Because of the addictive design of Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, students are struggling,” they said in a statement. “It means schools are struggling – their budgets are stretched and their educational missions are redirected as they shoulder the added responsibility of supporting children in crisis.”

General nuisance

The judge said claims by school districts based on the legal theory of public nuisance — successfully employed against sellers of nicotine vape pens — will be heard separately.

University of Florida law professor Clay Calvert said the large payouts in the Juul litigation may have prompted plaintiffs’ lawyers to pursue similar theories in the social media cases.

“I think they see there’s potential out there from large settlements,” he said.

But the professor also said there are fundamental differences between vape pens and social media, including First Amendment protections for content posted on social media.

The judges in Los Angeles and Oakland are overseeing separate batches of personal injury lawsuits by youths and families who claim the social media companies are responsible for causing widespread mental anguish and even suicide.

The federal case is In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 22-md-03047, US District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).

More similar stories are available at bloomberg.com

Originally published: 25 October 2024 at 07.52