A US federal court has decided that Meta, ByteDance, Alphabet, and Snap must face a lawsuit asserting that their social platforms have had a negative impact on the mental health of children as per a report by Reuters.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers firmly denied the motion by these social media giants to dismiss numerous lawsuits accusing them of operating platforms that are deemed “addictive” to children.
The legal action against Meta, ByteDance, Alphabet, and Snap has been brought forth by various school districts across the United States, alleging that these companies are responsible for causing both physical and emotional harm to children.
Forty two US states took legal action against Meta last month simultaneously, specifically targeting Facebook and Instagram for allegedly “profoundly altering the psychological and social realities of a generation of young Americans.” This ruling addresses not only individual suits but also consolidates “over 140 actions” taken against the companies.
Tuesday’s judgment makes it clear that the First Amendment and Section 230, designed to protect online platforms from being treated as publishers of third-party content, do not shield Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat from all liability in this case.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers emphasized that many of the claims made by the plaintiffs do not fall under the umbrella of “free speech or expression” as they pertain to alleged “defects” within the platforms. These include insufficient parental controls, the absence of “robust” age verification systems, and a challenging account deletion process.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers pointed out, “Addressing these defects would not require that defendants change how or what speech they disseminate,” offering examples such as parental notifications that could empower parents to limit their children’s access to the platform or engage in discussions about platform use with them.
Despite this, Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed some of the other identified “defects” protected under Section 230, such as setting limits on the amount of time spent on the platforms and features like offering a beginning and end to a feed, recommending children’s accounts to adults, and employing “addictive” algorithms.
In a joint statement, lead lawyers representing the plaintiffs, Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren, and Chris Seeger, hailed the decision as a “significant victory for the families that have been harmed by the dangers of social media.” They asserted that the ruling rejects Big Tech’s claim of blanket immunity under Section 230 or the First Amendment for the harm caused to their users.
Responding to the allegations, Google spokesperson José Castañeda stated that the complaints are “simply not true,” emphasizing the company’s commitment to providing age-appropriate experiences for kids on YouTube with robust parental controls.
While numerous lawsuits have previously argued that online platforms possess “defective” features causing harm to users, this ruling could potentially pave the way for a series of safety claims. Though it doesn’t conclusively determine legal liability for harm caused by social platforms, the decision may make it more challenging for these tech giants to defend against such claims.
(With input from agencies)