Meta, Google face thousands of youth addiction lawsuits after major US court ruling

A US appeals court on Monday cleared the way for thousands of lawsuits against Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok and Snap over allegations that their social media products were deliberately designed to keep young users engaged and addicted.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected an appeal by Meta and TikTok seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that required the companies to face more than 3,000 lawsuits filed in federal court.

The appeals court said the companies had challenged the ruling too early, allowing the broader litigation to continue.

Section 230 defense rejected at this stage

Meta and TikTok had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protected them from the lawsuits.

The law generally shields online platforms from liability for content posted by their users.

The companies argued that the protection also extended to claims that they failed to warn users about the potentially addictive nature of their products.

The companies said they should not have to wait until the litigation was completed before challenging the lower court's decision on Section 230.

The 9th Circuit disagreed, finding that the law provides a defense against liability rather than immunity from being sued in the first place.

It therefore ruled that the appeal was premature.

The decision leaves the companies facing litigation that could examine how their platforms were designed and what they knew about their effects on children.

Meta trial involving 29 states can proceed

The appeals court also rejected Meta's request to postpone a trial scheduled to begin Wednesday in a case brought by 29 state attorneys general.

The states allege that Meta illegally collected and used children's data, designed its platforms to keep young users hooked and misled consumers about the safety of its services.

Meta had argued that the trial should not proceed while its appeal remained unresolved.

The ruling comes days after a New Mexico judge found that Meta had created a public nuisance in the state.

The judge ordered the company to pay $567 million into a fund for teen mental health and to implement measures aimed at improving youth safety.

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment. TikTok representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment, Reuters said.

In March this year, a Los Angeles jury had found Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google liable for negligence in a landmark case alleging that their platforms contributed to mental health harms in a young user, marking a significant moment for the social media industry and its legal exposure.

The verdict, delivered in Los Angeles Superior Court, awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70% and YouTube for the remaining 30%. 

Thousands of lawsuits target social media platforms

The broader litigation involves states, municipalities, school districts, parents and individual users.

Plaintiffs allege that social media companies intentionally designed their products to encourage addictive use among young people, contributing to rising rates of depression, anxiety, body-image problems and other mental health concerns.

Attorneys Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, who represent thousands of school districts and individuals involved in the federal litigation, said the appeals court's decision would allow the states' trial to proceed.

They also pointed to a trial involving school districts scheduled for February.

"A trial is how the public finds out what Meta knew about its products' impact on children, when it knew it, and what it chose to do with that knowledge," the attorneys said in a Reuters report.

"Meta has fought to keep that evidence from the public."

The companies have continued to dispute the legal theories underpinning the cases, while plaintiffs have argued that Section 230 does not protect claims concerning the design and operation of social media platforms themselves.

Monday's ruling does not determine whether the companies are ultimately liable.

Instead, it allows the lawsuits to proceed, potentially opening the door to trials examining how major social media platforms were designed, marketed and operated around young users.