Social Media Giants Face Legal Action for Kids Mental Health Issues
For years, social media companies have contested claims that their design choices negatively impact children’s mental health by addicting them to their platforms and inadequately safeguarding them from sexual predators and harmful content. Now, these tech giants are poised to present their arguments in courtrooms across the nation, including before a jury for the first time. Major companies, including Meta and TikTok, are currently confronting federal and state trials aimed at holding them accountable for the detrimental effects on children’s mental health. The lawsuits have originated from school districts, local and state governments, the federal government, and thousands of families. Currently, two trials are in progress in Los Angeles and New Mexico, with additional trials anticipated in the future. The courtroom showdowns represent the culmination of years of scrutiny regarding the platforms’ child safety measures, questioning whether intentional design choices contribute to addiction and promote content that may lead to depression, eating disorders, or suicide. Experts view the reckoning as akin to the legal battles faced by the tobacco and opioid industries, with plaintiffs expressing hopes that social media platforms will experience outcomes comparable to those of cigarette manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, as well as pharmacies and distributors.
The results may pose a challenge to the First Amendment protections enjoyed by the companies, as well as Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which safeguards tech companies from liability for content shared on their platforms. They may also incur significant expenses in the form of legal fees and settlements. They could compel the companies to alter their operational methods, which may result in a loss of users and advertising revenue. An examination of the significant social media harm cases in the United States. The Los Angeles case focuses on addiction. Jurors in a landmark social media case that aims to hold tech companies accountable for the harms inflicted on children received their initial insight into what promises to be a protracted trial marked by conflicting narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants, Meta and YouTube. Central to the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old referred to only by the initials “KGM,” whose situation may influence the outcome of thousands of comparable lawsuits. KGM and the cases of two other plaintiffs have been chosen as bellwether trials—essentially serving as test cases for both parties to observe how their arguments unfold before a jury. “This is a monumental inflection point in social media,” said Matthew Bergman, which represents more than 1,000 plaintiffs in lawsuits against social media companies. “When we began this journey four years ago, no one anticipated that we would ever reach the trial stage. And here we are trying our case in front of a fair and impartial jury.”
On Wednesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg provided testimony, largely adhering to previously established positions. This included an extensive exchange regarding age verification, during which he stated, “I don’t see why this is so complicated.” He emphasized that the company’s policy prohibits users under the age of 13 and that efforts are made to identify users who misrepresent their ages to circumvent these restrictions. At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, inquired of Zuckerberg whether individuals are more likely to engage with something if it possesses addictive qualities. “I’m not sure what to say to that,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t believe that is relevant in this context.” New Mexico takes action against Meta regarding sexual exploitation A team under the leadership of New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, who initiated legal action against Meta in 2023, constructed their case by impersonating minors on social media platforms. They meticulously recorded the sexual solicitations they encountered, along with Meta’s subsequent reactions. Torrez urges Meta to enhance its age verification processes and take stronger action against harmful individuals on its platform. He is also pursuing modifications to algorithms that may deliver harmful content and has expressed criticism regarding end-to-end encryption, which can hinder the monitoring of communications with children for their safety.
Meta has observed that encrypted messaging is generally encouraged as a privacy and security measure by various state and federal authorities. The trial commenced in early February. In his opening statement, prosecuting attorney Donald Migliori asserted that Meta has misrepresented the safety of its platforms, opting to engineer its algorithms to keep young people online while being aware that children are at risk of sexual exploitation. “Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement,” Migliori told the jury. In his opening statement, Meta attorney Kevin Huff countered those assertions, emphasizing the company’s various initiatives aimed at eliminating harmful content from its platforms, while cautioning that some dangerous material still manages to evade its safety measures. School districts are set to go to trial. A trial set for this summer will see school districts facing off against social media companies in front of US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. Referred to as a multidistrict litigation, it identifies six public school districts from across the nation as the bellwethers. Jayne Conroy, an attorney on the plaintiffs’ trial team, has also represented plaintiffs aiming to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for the opioid epidemic. She stated that the foundation of both cases is identical: addiction. “With the social media case, we’re focused primarily on children and their developing brains and how addiction is such a threat to their wellbeing and… the harms that are caused to children – how much they’re watching and what kind of targeting is being done,” she said. The medical science, she added, “is not really all that different, surprisingly, from an opioid or a heroin addiction. We are all discussing the dopamine reaction.”
Both the social media and the opioid cases assert negligence on the part of the defendants. “What we were able to prove in the opioid cases is the manufacturers, the distributors, the pharmacies, they knew about the risks, they downplayed them, they oversupplied, and people died,” Conroy said. “Here, it is very much the same thing.” These companies were aware of the risks; they chose to ignore them, prioritizing profits from advertisers over the safety of children. And children were harmed and children died. “Resolution may require years due to conflicting narratives.” Social media companies have contested the notion that their products are addictive. During questioning on Wednesday by the plaintiff’s lawyer in the Los Angeles trial, Zuckerberg reiterated his stance, stating that he still agrees with his earlier assertion that the current body of scientific research has not established a causal link between social media and mental health issues. Some researchers do indeed question whether “addiction” is the appropriate term to describe heavy use of social media. Social media addiction is not classified as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which serves as the authoritative reference within the psychiatric community.
However, the companies are encountering growing resistance regarding the impact of social media on children’s mental health, with concerns raised not just by academics but also by parents, schools, and lawmakers. “While Meta has doubled down in this area to address mounting concerns by rolling out safety features, several recent reports suggest that the company continues to aggressively prioritise teens as a user base and doesn’t always adhere to its own rules,” said analyst Minda Smiley. The cases against social media companies, including appeals and any settlement discussions, may take years to resolve. And unlike in Europe and Australia, tech regulation in the US is progressing at a remarkably slow rate. “Parents, education, and other stakeholders are increasingly hoping lawmakers will do more,” Smiley said. “Despite the momentum at both the state and federal levels, the influence of Big Tech lobbying, challenges in enforcement, and disagreements among lawmakers regarding the optimal regulation of social media have hindered significant advancement.”
