A federal court ruled on Tuesday that Meta, ByteDance, Alphabet and Snap must continue to face lawsuits alleging that their social platforms have adverse effects on children's mental health. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion by the social media giants to dismiss dozens of lawsuits that accused the companies of operating platforms that made children "addictive."
School districts across the U.S. have filed lawsuits against Meta, ByteDance, Alphabet and Snap, accusing the companies of causing physical and emotional harm to children. Meanwhile, 42 states sued Meta last month, claiming that Facebook and Instagram had "profoundly changed the psychological and social reality of a generation of young Americans." The order covers individual lawsuits and "more than 140 lawsuits" against the two companies.
Tuesday's ruling noted that the First Amendment and Section 230, which states that online platforms should not be deemed to be publishers of third-party content, do not exempt Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat from all liability in this case. Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted that many of the claims made by the plaintiffs did not "constitute freedom of speech or expression" because they related to alleged "deficiencies" in the platform itself. These flaws include insufficient parental controls, no "robust" age verification system, and a difficult account deletion process.
"Addressing these deficiencies does not require defendants to change the manner or content of their dissemination of speech," Judge Gonzalez-Rogers wrote. "For example, a parental notice may reasonably authorize parents to restrict their children's access to the platform or to discuss the platform's use with their children," Judge Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.
However, the judge still dismissed several other "deficiencies" pointed out by the plaintiffs as being protected by Section 230, such as the beginning and end of the provision of information, the recommendation of children's accounts to adults, the use of "addictive" algorithms and the lack of limits on time spent on the platform.
Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren and Chris Seeger, the lead attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement: "Today's decision is a significant victory for families harmed by social media. The court's decision rejects Big Tech's overbroad and incorrect assertion that Section 230 or the First Amendment should give them blanket immunity for harm caused to their users."
Meta, Snap, ByteDance and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed claiming that online platforms contained "defective" features that harmed users, but these lawsuits - including one high-profile one alleging harassment on Grindr - are often dismissed by courts. As a growing body of research shows the potential harm social platforms can cause to children, lawmakers have pushed through new laws specifically aimed at child safety, including age verification requirements. The ruling does not find that social platforms caused harm or hold them legally responsible, but even without new laws, it could pave the way for a flood of safety claims and make legal defense against them more difficult.