Report from PBS
In Brief – The initial “bellwether” trial testing claims that major social media platforms are liable for a wide range of mental health injuries because they intentionally designed their products to be addictive to children is underway in Los Angeles Superior Court. The trial centers on a single plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., who alleges that a lack of sufficient guardrails and warnings on social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snap led to compulsive use and mental health concerns such as depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm and risk of suicide. The trail is the first of a massive, consolidated proceeding known as JCCP 5255, which includes thousands of similar claims nationwide. The trial is expected to focus on whether social media features such as infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendations constitute addictive product design rather than protected speech, as well as whether alleged harm to users was actually caused by harmful content posted by some users rather than product features. Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff in the days leading up to the trial, leaving Meta and Google to carry the defense.
Context – Social media critics have been pursuing strategies to circumvent Sec. 230 for years, including arguing that platform designs encourage “addictive” use. While most of the state laws regulating social media have been blocked over First Amendment concerns, the trend is increasingly mixed in the wake of indecisive Supreme Court decisions in internet-related cases, including when just five justices agreed that social media platforms engage in expressive activity strongly protected by First Amendment in Moody v NetChoice, including Justice Barrett who questioned whether algorithms are speech. Civil lawsuits targeting platforms for faulty design are having better luck getting past initial court hurdles, although a few judges have noted the distinct lack of evidence that teens are generally and consistently harmed by social media use.