A lawsuit accusing social media companies of intentionally harming children through addictive platform designs is allowed to advance, a federal court ruled today.
Brought on behalf of hundreds of minors across the U.S., the consolidated lawsuit alleges companies including Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube specifically designed their platforms to “hook” young users, leading to mental health issues like anxiety and depression.
The case consolidates over 100 individual lawsuits filed beginning in early 2022, soon after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal research about Instagram’s adverse effects on teen mental health.
Judge Allows Bulk Of Lawsuit to Proceed
“Defendants are alleged to target children as a core market and designed their platforms to appeal to and addict them,” wrote Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the order issued in California.
The companies sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing they are shielded from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Known simply as Section 230, this 1996 law protects online platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content.
But after a detailed analysis, Rogers wrote, “the parties’ ‘all or nothing’ approach to the motions to dismiss does not sufficiently address the complexity of the issues facing this litigation.”
At the center of the lawsuit are allegations around the platforms’ never-ending feeds, push notifications, algorithmic recommendations, and other design features that make them addictive. The plaintiffs say these intentional design choices are to blame for mental health harms, not the content itself.
Rogers agreed. Section 230 does not prohibit product liability claims focused on design defects like ineffective parental controls, age verification, time limits, and barriers to account deletion. However, claims about using algorithms to recommend accounts and some notification features were dismissed.
“The same applies here. The Court must consider the specific conduct through which the defendants allegedly violated their duties to plaintiffs,” Rogers wrote. “It is these detailed, conduct-specific allegations that require analysis.”