In a fervent response, plaintiffs’ counsel declared, “This is a monumental day for children who have been harmed by these social media companies. For the first time, a court has determined that claims based on social media addiction are not barred by Section 230 or the First Amendment. As plaintiffs have said from the beginning, this case is about defendants’ despicable and intentional conduct with conscious disregard for the health and safety of children. This ruling sets the stage for complete discovery and trials on the merits of these issues. Plaintiffs will seek full and complete justice.”
Dynamic Platforms, Not Static Products
Judge Kuhl emphasized that social media platforms are not static products with a well-defined purpose, such as a lawnmower, but versatile tools used for various purposes. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram facilitate interactive experiences, creating a dynamic digital landscape.
First Amendment and Section 230 Not Shields
The First Amendment does not shield these platforms from negligence claims, as parents aim to hold them responsible for manipulating their children’s interactions on the platforms, according to the judge. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally protects online publishers from content liability, also does not shield the companies, as plaintiffs claim they were harmed by features designed to maximize platform use among minors, leading to addiction and health issues.
