Tech giants like Meta face lawsuits filed by school districts in federal court, accusing their applications of causing a mental health crisis among students. U.S. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled that despite conflicting judgments, these companies still need to address claims in over 150 cases. Google and Meta deny wrongdoing, stating that measures have been taken to protect young users. School districts hope to recoup costs from social media addiction, and the cases could result in even greater economic losses
According to a recent ruling obtained by Zhitong Finance APP, Meta (META.US), Google (GOOGL.US), TikTok, and Snap (SNAP.US) will have to face a lawsuit filed by school districts in federal court, accusing their "addictive" applications of causing a mental health crisis among students.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers in Oakland, California, made this ruling, after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge issued a contrary ruling on June 7. This disagreement could expose these platforms to damages in over 150 cases before Rogers, despite their efforts to evade liability in over 600 other cases filed in Los Angeles.
Rogers generally denied requests to dismiss claims of negligence but narrowed the scope of the allegations that will proceed. She concluded that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prohibits some claims, which is a long-standing federal law protecting internet companies from lawsuits.
Spokespersons for Google and Meta denied any wrongdoing, stating that their companies have taken measures to protect the safety of young users on their platforms. Snap also cited its safety measures and pointed out that research shows positive effects of Snapchat on user well-being. TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Just a week ago, Rogers ruled that Meta must face lawsuits from dozens of state attorneys general, accusing it of intentionally causing children to become addicted to its Facebook and Instagram platforms. TikTok also faces similar accusations from multiple state coalitions. Both companies deny any wrongdoing.
These companies also face hundreds of personal injury lawsuits alleging that they designed platforms that encourage young people to spend unhealthy amounts of time on screens. However, the school cases could bring about greater potential economic losses, as each district seeks to recoup institutional costs from the negative impact of hundreds of students addicted to social media.
The districts claim that these companies designed their platforms in a harmful way to addict children by using algorithms and features like the "like" button — similar to how cigarette manufacturers design their products to be addictive.
"Forced Use"
Rogers stated that the core legal theory of these schools is viable: social media companies "intentionally encourage the forced use of their platforms, which foreseeably leads to" districts spending resources to address students' mental health crises.
Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda stated in a declaration that these accusations are unfounded.
Castaneda said, "We work with teenagers, mental health, and parenting experts to develop services and policies that provide age-appropriate experiences for young people and empower parents with strong controls."
A spokesperson for Meta stated in a declaration that the company disagrees with the court's ruling.
The statement said, "We have developed many tools to support parents and teenagers, and we recently announced that we will significantly change the Instagram experience for tens of millions of teenagers, providing them with a new protected experience that automatically limits who can contact them and what they see." "
The plaintiff's chief attorneys Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren praised the ruling as a victory for schools, teachers, and administrators at the forefront of the national youth mental health crisis.
In a statement, they said, "Due to the addictive designs of Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, students are struggling. This means schools are struggling - their budgets are tight, their educational missions are being diverted, as they take on the additional responsibility of supporting children in crisis."
Public Nuisance
The judge stated that claims made by the school district based on the legal theory of public nuisance will be handled separately, a theory that has been successfully used against nicotine e-cigarette vendors.
Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida, said that the massive settlements in Juul e-cigarette lawsuits may prompt plaintiff attorneys to seek similar theories in social media cases.
He said, "I think they see the potential for a large-scale settlement."
However, the professor also pointed out that there are fundamental differences between e-cigarettes and social media, including the protection of content posted on social media platforms under the First Amendment.
Judges in Los Angeles and Oakland are hearing various batches of personal injury lawsuits brought by young people and families, who claim that social media companies should be held responsible for causing widespread psychological distress and even suicides.
"