Meta Platforms Inc., Google, TikTok and Snap are facing lawsuits in federal court from school districts that blame their “addictive” apps for contributing to a mental health crisis amongst students.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Thursday in Oakland, California, follows a contrary ruling June 7 by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in favor of the businesses. The split may leave the platforms in search of damages in greater than 150 cases before Rogers, while poised to flee liability for claims in greater than 600 other cases filed in Los Angeles.
Rogers generally denied a motion to dismiss claims of negligence, but limited the scope of the allegations that will probably be pursued. It concluded that some claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a long-standing federal law that shields web firms from lawsuits.
Spokespeople for Google and Meta denied wrongdoing and said their firms had taken measures to make sure the security of young users on the platforms. Snap also cited its safety initiatives and pointed to research showing Snapchat has a positive impact on users' well-being. TikTok didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.
RELATED: He prosecuted child abusers. Now he's taking motion against Meta for allegedly activating it
The ruling comes a bit greater than every week after Rogers ruled that Meta faces a lawsuit from dozens of state attorneys general for knowingly luring children on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. TikTok is confronted with similar claims from a coalition of states. Both firms denied wrongdoing.
The firms also face significant exposure from a whole lot of private injury lawsuits accusing them of designing their platforms to encourage teens to spend unhealthy amounts of time in front of screens. But the college cases have the potential to cause greater financial damage as each district tries to offset institutional costs with the negative impact that comes when a whole lot of individual students turn into involved in social media.
The school districts alleged that the businesses designed their platforms to addict children through the use of algorithms and features just like the “Like” button in ways in which were harmful to society – much like cigarette manufacturers who use their products designed to be addictive.
“Compulsive use”
Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a press release that the claims were unfaithful.
“Working with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we have developed services and policies to provide age-appropriate experiences for young people and robust controls for parents,” Castaneda said.
A Meta spokesperson said in a press release that the corporate disagrees with the court's decision.
“We've built numerous tools to support parents and teens, and recently announced that we're significantly transforming the Instagram experience for tens of millions of teens with new teen accounts. “This is a protected experience for teens that automatically limits who can contact them based on the content they see,” the statement said.
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.”
“Students are struggling because of the addictive design of Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube,” it said in a press release. “This means schools are struggling – their budgets are stretched and their educational missions are being diverted as they have to take on the additional responsibility of supporting children in crisis.”
Public nuisance
The judge said school district claims based on the legal theory of public nuisance, successfully used against sellers of nicotine vape pens, will probably be treated individually.
Clay Calvert, a law professor on the University of Florida, said the massive payouts within the Juul litigation could have led plaintiffs' lawyers to pursue similar theories within the social media cases.
“I think they see that large developments have potential,” he said.
But the professor also notes key differences between vape pens and social media, including First Amendment protections for content posted on social media.
Judges in Los Angeles and Oakland are overseeing separate personal injury lawsuits filed by teens and families that allege the social media firms are chargeable for widespread psychological distress and even suicides.
The federal case is In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 22-md-03047, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).
For more stories like this, try Bloomberg.com
©2024 Bloomberg LP
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com