Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok and Snap Inc.’s Snapchat must face thousands of lawsuits alleging their social-media products were designed to keep young users hooked, after a U.S. appeals court rejected an attempt by Meta and TikTok to halt the litigation.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the companies’ challenge to a lower-court decision allowing more than 3,000 federal lawsuits to proceed, saying the appeal was premature. The ruling means the cases can continue while the companies’ broader legal arguments are litigated, according to The Hindu, which reported the decision.
At the center of the dispute is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a law that generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. Meta and TikTok argued that the provision also protects them from claims that they failed to warn users about the potentially addictive nature of their products.
The appeals court rejected that interpretation for purposes of an immediate appeal, saying Section 230 provides a defense against liability rather than immunity from having to defend a lawsuit.
The decision adds to mounting legal pressure on the world’s largest social-media companies over their treatment of children and teenagers.
Meta Youth-Safety Trial Can Proceed
The appeals court also rejected Meta’s request to delay a trial scheduled to begin Wednesday involving 29 state attorneys general.
The states allege that Meta illegally collected and used children’s data, designed its platforms to encourage young users to remain engaged and misled consumers about the safety of its services. Meta had argued that the trial should be postponed while its appeal was pending.
The ruling comes only days after a New Mexico judge found that Meta had created a public nuisance in the state and ordered the company to pay $567 million into a fund for teen mental-health initiatives and implement measures aimed at improving youth safety.
Meta declined to comment, according to The Hindu. TikTok representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Companies Face Wider Litigation
The federal cases have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. They include claims brought by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals seeking damages, penalties and restitution.
Plaintiffs allege that the companies deliberately designed their platforms to encourage addictive use among children and teenagers, contributing to rising levels of depression, anxiety, body-image problems and other mental-health concerns among young people.
Attorneys representing thousands of school districts and individuals welcomed Monday’s decision.
“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,” Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren said in a statement, according to The Hindu. “Meta has fought to keep that evidence from the public.”
The ruling also leaves intact plans for a trial involving school districts scheduled for February.
The companies face hundreds of additional lawsuits in state courts, including about 3,300 cases consolidated in California state court, according to The Hindu.
Early Trials Raise Stakes
The litigation has already produced significant losses for the companies.
In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent for designing social-media platforms that harmed young people. The jury awarded $6 million to a young woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.
Meta and Google denied the allegations and said they would appeal.
In another phase of the New Mexico case, a jury in March ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding that the company had misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. The subsequent public-nuisance ruling increased the financial penalty to $567 million and imposed additional youth-safety requirements.
Monday’s appellate ruling does not determine whether Meta, Google, TikTok or Snap ultimately will be found liable in the thousands of cases. Instead, it removes an attempt to resolve the Section 230 issue before the underlying litigation has reached final judgments.
The cases could therefore force the companies to defend their product-design decisions and internal practices in court, potentially exposing evidence about how they assessed the effects of their platforms on children and teenagers.
