Federal Court Allows Lawsuits Against Tech Companies Over Addictive Platforms
A federal appeals court announced on Monday that over 3,000 lawsuits against major tech companies such as Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap can proceed. These lawsuits claim that these companies purposefully designed their platforms to be addictive, particularly for young users. The plaintiffs include states, local governments, school districts, and various individuals who argue that problematic algorithms and insufficient protections against harmful content are leading to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and issues with body image in young people.
The cases will be heard by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, who has stated that most of these cases can move forward throughout 2023 and 2024. Meta and TikTok have responded by appealing this decision, contending that they are shielded from liability due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally protects tech companies from being held responsible for user-generated content.
Justice Jacqueline Nguyen, writing a 24-page opinion, noted that Section 230 doesn’t provide unconditional immunity from lawsuits, but rather serves as a “defense against liability.” During oral arguments in January, she seemed doubtful about the companies’ claims, suggesting, “When Congress wants to give immunity from lawsuits, Congress knows what to say.” The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the law does not cover claims related to the intentional design and operation of the products.
The Court of Appeals did not definitively conclude whether Section 230 prevents these product design lawsuits but held that the appeal was premature due to the trial court’s decision not being final. This ongoing case could potentially lead to further lawsuits against tech firms, with plaintiffs seeking damages, civil penalties, and compensation.
In California state courts, about 3,300 similar lawsuits are currently being organized. A notable trial earlier in March resulted in a $6 million verdict for a 20-year-old woman who claimed that her childhood addiction to Instagram and YouTube caused her mental health issues. The jury deemed Meta and Google negligent in their platform design and for failing to warn users about associated risks. TikTok and Snap reached settlements with the plaintiffs before the trial took place. All companies deny the allegations and have appealed.
Additionally, in March, a jury in New Mexico found that Meta had misled users about platform safety and facilitated child exploitation, resulting in a civil penalty of $375 million. A state district judge subsequently ordered Meta to pay an extra $567 million and to enforce safety measures, such as stricter age verification and usage restrictions. Meta has denied any wrongdoing and plans to appeal this ruling.
Separately, another trial involving 29 states regarding meth is set to commence on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals dismissed Meta’s efforts to postpone this trial, which involves accusations that the company breached federal privacy laws and state consumer protection laws by collecting data from children and employing potentially addictive design features. Mr. Mehta has also denied these allegations.
These lawsuits come amid growing global pressures for governments to enforce new limits on social media access for minors. Australia became the first country to implement a national ban on social media for children under 16 last December. Similar proposals are in the works in Spain and the UK, while France’s parliament recently approved a ban for under-15s, pending constitutional review. Discussions about similar measures are taking place in Denmark, Greece, and Norway.
In the U.S., at least 20 states have adopted laws regarding social media usage by minors, although many face legal challenges. For example, Illinois passed a law in July that restricts how platforms can use minors’ data to personalize feeds, set to begin in 2028. Industry group NetChoice, representing firms like Meta and TikTok, is contesting several state laws on the grounds of free speech and privacy, with courts in various states blocking some of these efforts. Additionally, Reddit is pursuing legal action against Australia’s ban.
