Meta’s Lobbying for Legal Immunity in Child Harm Cases
Meta Inc., led by Mark Zuckerberg, is reportedly lobbying Congress to include a provision in upcoming legislation that would protect it from legal ramifications regarding claims of harm to children. This move comes as the company faces a multitude of lawsuits from young users and their families over issues like social media addiction.
According to a report from Reuters, Meta aims to secure legal immunity concerning child harm claims related to its platforms, especially Instagram. The proposed measure is intended to be part of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which is currently under review in the U.S. Senate. Should this provision be accepted and enacted into law, it could potentially nullify thousands of lawsuits against Meta and other online platforms that are alleging harm to minors.
Back in March, it was reported that both Meta and Google were found liable in a historic trial focused on child social media addiction.
The verdict resulted in a substantial monetary award, likely to rise further since jurors determined that the companies acted with malice. This means that the jury will reconvene to assess additional evidence and decide on punitive damages, which could significantly affect the total compensation.
In this case, Meta and YouTube were the only defendants after TikTok and Snap had settled prior to the trial. A plaintiff, referred to in legal documents as KGM and known as Kaylee in court, testified alongside notable figures from the tech industry. Both Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri represented Meta in this context, while YouTube CEO Neil Mohan did not testify.
The language under consideration, as reviewed by Reuters, would provide online platforms protection from state lawsuits related to safety or privacy claims for individuals under 18, connecting it to provisions in KOSA. This seems to work alongside stipulations that would override state laws concerning children’s online safety and privacy.
When asked about their lobbying efforts, Meta spokeswoman Stephanie Otway emphasized that this provision “does not extinguish existing litigation and does not imply blanket immunity.” She argued that the intention is to create consistent national standards for online youth safety, governed by comprehensive federal regulations rather than a scattered assortment of state laws.
However, Julia Duncan from the American Association for Justice contested this viewpoint. She claimed that if the provision were to pass, any lawsuits that are active when the law takes effect would be null and void. “This language clearly signals to every parent and school district seeking accountability from AI and social media firms regarding child harm,” she stated, adding, “There’s really no other way to interpret this language.”
