A Los Angeles judge has declined to dismiss a series of blockbuster lawsuits against Meta, TikTok, Snap and Google arguing their platforms are intentionally designed to addict and fuel mental health disorders in teenagers, increasing the likelihood they will have to potentially face or settle for billions of dollars the product liability claims.
In the first order advancing litigation raising a novel public nuisance theory from hundreds of government officials and parents of minors, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl on Friday found that the companies can’t wield Section 230 — Big Tech’s favorite legal shield — to escape some claims in the case. She nodded to “the fact that the design features of the platforms — and not the specific content viewed” by users caused their injuries.
Thousands of plaintiffs across the country have sued social media companies, arguing their platforms are essentially defective products that lead to eating disorders, anxiety and suicide, among other mental health injuries. The lawsuits could lead to multibillion-dollar payouts, with similar public nuisance lawsuits from government officials in lawsuits against opioid and tobacco manufacturers having resulted in massive settlements. By steering clear of claims centering on the specific content that companies host, they’re trying to sidestep potential immunity flowing from Section 230, which has historically afforded tech firms significant legal protection from liability as third-party publishers.
