Report from the New York Times
In Brief – Meta has reached reached a settlement agreement in the first lawsuit headed to trial in federal court over claims that addiction to social media platforms has pushed public schools to spend massive sums fighting a youth mental health crisis. With the agreement, Meta joined TikTok, Snap and YouTube averting a face off with rural Breathitt Country School District from Kentucky. The trial, which was scheduled to begin June 12, was seen as a test case for more than 1,200 similar school district lawsuits. No settlement terms have been disclosed. Estimates of total social media liability to schools reach $400 billion.
Context – For several years, social media critics have been pursuing civil litigation alleging that the platforms were designed to addict young users. The lawsuits focus on platform features to circumvent Sec. 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act that protects digital platforms from being liable for harm caused by content created by their users. The thousands of private plaintiffs include individuals claiming to have been directly injured and schools claiming to have spent lots of money dealing with addicted youths. The cases have largely been consolidated in the California state court of Judge Carolyn Kuhl and the federal court of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers. In 2023, both Kuhl and Gonzalez separately ruled that Sec. 230 shielded the platforms from some but not all charges, allowing complaints targeting platform features to proceed. Judge Kuhl dismissed all the lawsuits filed by school districts in 2024, ruling that school claims about student behavior were too remote to impose direct liability on the companies. However, Judge Gonzalez ruled the other way earlier this year and allowed the school districts’ federal lawsuits to proceed. The first trial involving an individual user plaintiff occurred in Kuhl’s Los Angeles court earlier this year. TikTok and Snap settled before trial. Meta and YouTube did not, and a jury found them liable for harming the plaintiff and awarded $6 million in damages. The platforms are appealing. Enough losses may lead to platforms reaching agreement that include changes to their designs that would not withstand First Amendment scrutiny if they were legislated.