Landmark Decision: California Judge Rejects Big Tech’s Bid to Dismiss Lawsuits Alleging Harm to Children

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a pivotal ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California dealt a blow to major social media companies, including Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Meta Platforms (Facebook and Instagram), ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap (Snapchat), as was reported by the New York Post.  The judge rejected their attempts to dismiss nationwide lawsuits accusing them of illegally enticing and harming millions of children through their platforms, contributing to negative mental health effects.

The decision encompasses hundreds of lawsuits filed on behalf of individual children who claim to have suffered adverse physical, mental, and emotional health consequences due to their use of social media, the Post report said. Alleged effects include anxiety, depression, and, tragically, occasional suicide.

Lead lawyers for the plaintiffs—Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren, and Chris Seeger—hailed the decision as a significant victory for families affected by the perceived dangers of social media, the Post report said.  “Today’s decision is a significant victory for the families that have been harmed by the dangers of social media,” the plaintiffs’ lead lawyers – Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren and Chris Seeger – said in a joint statement.

The Post report indicated that the lawsuits seek various remedies, including damages and an injunction against the defendants’ alleged wrongful practices.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected the companies’ argument that they are protected under Section 230, a provision of the federal Communications Decency Act shielding internet companies from third-party actions, as was noted in the Post report. She stated in her 52-page ruling that nothing in Section 230 or existing case law indicates that it only applies to publishing when a defendant’s sole intent is to convey or curate information.

“Nothing in Section 230 or existing case law indicates that Section 230 only applies to publishing where a defendant’s only intent is to convey or curate information. To hold otherwise would essentially be to hold that any website that generates revenue by maintaining the interest of users and publishes content with the intent of meeting this goal, would no longer be entitled to Section 230 immunity,” Judge Rogers said in her ruling, according to the Post report.

Rogers continued: “Defendants either do not require users to enter their age upon sign-up or do not have effective age-verification for users, even though such verification technology is readily available and, in some instances, used by defendants in other contexts.”

The judge emphasized that the plaintiffs’ claims extended beyond third-party content, and the defendants failed to address why they should not be held liable for providing defective parental controls. As was reported by the Post, she highlighted features of popular social media platforms that, according to the ruling, enable coercive and predatory behavior toward children, such as content length limitations, notifications to draw users back to platforms, and engagement-based algorithms.

Additionally, Judge Gonzalez Rogers criticized the lack of effective age verification measures, pointing out that defendants either do not require users to enter their age upon sign-up or lack efficient age-verification technology, the Post reported. Specifically, she called out Facebook for relying on a user’s self-reported age during the sign-up process, allowing users under 13 to circumvent age restrictions.

While dismissing some claims related to defective platform design, the judge’s decision signals a potential shift in the legal landscape regarding social media companies’ responsibilities and liability for the impact of their platforms on children’s well-being, the report added.

The tech giants have staunchly defended themselves against the allegations, with a Google spokesperson, José Castañeda, asserting that the complaints’ allegations are untrue and emphasizing their commitment to protecting children on their platforms, according to the Post report.

“Protecting kids across our platforms has always been core to our work. In collaboration with child development specialists, we have built age-appropriate experiences for kids and families on YouTube, and provide parents with robust controls,” Castañeda added.

The Post also reported that more than 140 school districts have filed similar lawsuits against the industry, and 42 states plus the District of Columbia last month sued Meta for youth addiction to its social media platforms.

As the legal battle unfolds, this ruling may have far-reaching implications for the tech industry’s responsibility in safeguarding the well-being of young users.