Meta Platforms, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok suffered a setback on Wednesday when a California state judge ruled that failure-to-warn claims in a consolidated lawsuit against the companies can proceed. The case, which accuses the platforms of contributing to a mental health crisis among children through their addictive features, will move forward despite the social media companies' attempts to have the claims dismissed.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl's ruling rejected the tech giants' argument that failure-to-warn claims don't apply outside the realm of product liability or real estate cases. The judge agreed with plaintiffs that the platforms' operations, such as their addictive features, were foreseeable contributors to harm. "The amended complaints state a claim for negligent failure to warn under California law," Judge Kuhl wrote.

The social media companies had also sought to dismiss the claims under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically shields platforms from liability over third-party content. However, Judge Kuhl found that these defenses did not apply to the platforms' own design features. She ruled that the companies could still be held liable for app features like image filtering, data tracking, and features like geolocation, friend recommendations, and virtual gifting buttons, which could lead to potential harm such as child sexual exploitation.

Judge Kuhl further clarified that the claims were based on the allegedly harmful design features of the apps, not the content posted by users. "The allegedly addictive features of defendants' platforms… are based on harm allegedly caused by design features that affect how plaintiffs interact with the platforms regardless of the nature of the third-party content viewed," the judge wrote.

However, the court did rule in favor of the tech companies in one area, striking failure-to-warn claims regarding TikTok's "challenge videos," which were found to be third-party content protected by Section 230.

This ruling allows the mass tort case to move forward, with failure-to-warn claims continuing alongside allegations of negligence and concealment. Bellwether discovery is underway, and the first trial is tentatively set for fall 2025. Parallel federal claims are also in progress as part of multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs' attorney Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen Law Firm expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing their readiness to present evidence at the first bellwether trial. In response, a Meta spokesperson stated that the company disagreed with the decision and plans to continue defending against the claims under Section 230.

The case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.