Several major social media companies, including Meta Platforms Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc., and Google LLC, have encountered a significant legal setback as a Los Angeles county judge ruled that they cannot invoke the First Amendment or the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 to block lawsuits claiming that their platforms are designed to addict young users, resulting in depression and anxiety.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which encompass more than 350 individual personal injury cases and 250 cases filed by school districts, seek to hold the social media companies accountable for how they designed and operated their platforms rather than focusing on the content hosted on them.

Judge Kuhl's decision, presented in an 89-page order, clarified that social media platforms are not 'products' in the context of product liability claims. Nevertheless, the lawsuits successfully argued that the companies displayed negligence, a theory not protected by federal immunity or the First Amendment.

A federal judge is set to conduct a hearing on the companies' motion to dismiss in the federal multidistrict case on October 27.

Why does it matter?

Since Frances Haugen revealed several internal documents to The Wall Street Journal, exposing Facebook's culture of indifference, which includes neglecting the well-being of young users and manipulating user behavior, various efforts have been initiated to address these issues. In addition to the mentioned legal action, a similar federal case involving more than 400 plaintiffs is currently underway in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. More recently, a bill in New York has been proposed to safeguard young individuals from features designed to keep them endlessly scrolling, which can jeopardize their mental health and overall development.