Historically, lawsuits against social media companies for inappropriate or harmful content on their platforms have largely failed. Social media companies have been shielded from litigation by Section 230, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was designed to protect online service providers and web operators at the dawn of the internet. Section 230 holds that providers are not liable for the content their users post, a measure that was intended to promote innovation.
It goes without saying that the internet and technology have evolved dramatically since Section 230 was enacted. (In the early 2000s, I had to buy “minutes” at the gas station to make phone calls, and my family shared a “home computer.”)
Young people are now contending with the result of three decades of rapid innovation, and a concerned society is on the brink of opening up the legal and regulatory equivalent of Pandora’s Box to rein tech back in.
Content is no longer viewed as the central risk to young people online. Rather, litigators are suing over the engagement-based design of the platforms themselves—and judges have largely found that Section 230 and First Amendment protections don’t bar these product liability claims.
Two major developments this week:
- Boston Mayor Michelle Wu announced that the city of Boston, on behalf of Boston Public Schools, filed a lawsuit against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. The lawsuit aims to hold social media companies accountable for the “addictive design features” on their platforms, which the city of Boston argues have negative effects on kids’ wellbeing. Filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, the lawsuit joins related complaints filed by more than 1,500 school districts across the U.S., which have been consolidated into a master complaint.
- Separately, Meta disclosed in a court filing this week that California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in a case set for trial next month. The states’ attorneys general allege that the tech giant intentionally designed its platforms, Facebook and Instagram, to be addictive to children and misled the public about how safe the platforms are (or are not) for their youngest users.
These suits are built upon the verdict of K.G.M. v. Meta et al., a landmark case decided by a California jury earlier this year. The jury found Meta and Google liable for the mental health challenges suffered by the plaintiff in the case, who used their platforms compulsively from childhood. The jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the total. Meta intends to appeal, and the companies were denied a new trial in June.
The case was a bellwether—the first social media addiction case to reach a jury anywhere in the country—and it has already reshaped the litigation landscape, with several platforms opting to settle rather than face juries. Meanwhile, the race to restrict or ban cellphone use and screen time in the classroom continues as part of a broader national movement to address the youth mental health crisis. [WBUR; Reuters; PBS]
This article is sourced from Whiteboard Notes, our weekly newsletter of the latest education policy and industry news read by thousands of education leaders, investors, grantmakers, and entrepreneurs. Subscribe here.
