Social media companies face LA trial over role in youth mental health crisis

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Tech giants Meta, Google, ByteDance and Snap will stand as defendants in a civil trial brought by thousands of plaintiffs who say that social media usage fueled “an unprecedented mental health crisis” amongst teenagers, after a superior court judge rejected one last attempt by the companies to have the case thrown out on summary judgment.

“We applaud the court in this landmark decision that will allow families across this nation to seek accountability for the alleged devastating effects of social media addiction,” said plaintiff’s attorneys John Morgan and Emily Jeffcott in a written statement. “For years, the defendants have allegedly known the harmful effects their platforms had on developing minds. We look forward to presenting the evidence in front of a jury and seeking justice for the harm caused by these social media platforms.”

The torrent of personal injury lawsuits has been consolidated into one coordinated judicial proceeding in downtown LA. The judge has selected three bellwether cases, with the three plaintiffs each proceeding under pseudonyms: K.G.M., R.K.C. and Moore. One of those cases is expected to go to a jury trial in January. The judgments in those first three cases will, at least in theory, form the basis for a settlement covering the remaining plaintiffs.

In their motions for summary judgment, the makers of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat all argued they were shielded from the claims by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability based on content generated by third parties. It was the content, they argued, that was allegedly harming the minors, not the apps.

Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl had already agreed to strike some of the plaintiffs’ claims based on Section 230. For example, she agreed to throw out any claims against TikTok over its viral “challenges,” such as the blackout challenge or the Benadryl challenge, which, respectively, encouraged users to choke themselves to the point of unconsciousness or to take Benadryl. Those, she said, were classic examples of third-party content. She also ruled that Section 230 barred claims of negligence based on the defendants’ failure to remove material purportedly depicting child sexual abuse.

But many of the other claims, she said, were based on features designed by the apps’ software engineers — for example, the infinite scroll that has become a regular feature on Instagram or the autoplay feature on YouTube and TikTok, both of which are designed to keep the user glued to the app.

In her latest ruling, Kuhl wrote the companies had “failed to present new argument or new authority persuading this court that it should revise its prior conclusions.” She added: “Meta certainly may argue to the jury that K.G.M.’s injuries were caused by content she viewed. But Plaintiff has presented evidence that features of Instagram that draw the user into compulsive viewing of content were a substantial factor in causing her harm.”

Meta had also argued that its “choices about how to organize and present third-party speech” were protected First Amendment activity. Kuhl rejected that argument as well, pointing again to one of her prior rulings in which she found “the allegedly addictive features of defendants’ platforms (such as endless scroll) cannot be analogized to how a publisher chooses to make a compilation of information, but rather are based on harm allegedly caused by design features that affect how Plaintiffs interact with the platforms regardless of the nature of the third-party content viewed.”

Google had made a different argument: that K.G.M. had failed to present evidence that YouTube consumption had caused her social media addiction. Again, Kuhl disagreed.

“Google is correct that the causation issues in this case are undeniably complex,” she wrote. “Those ‘causation issues’ must be resolved by a jury after all admissible evidence is presented at trial.”

Similar arguments made by Snap and TikTok were similarly rejected.

In a written statement, Snap attorneys said: “We remain focused on preparing for trial and look forward to explaining why Plaintiffs’ allegations against Snap are wrong factually and as a matter of law. Snapchat was designed differently from traditional social media; it opens to the camera, allowing Snapchatters to connect with family and friends in an environment that prioritizes their safety and privacy.”

Attorneys for the other companies either declined to comment or didn’t return emails.

Last week, during oral arguments over the summary judgment motions, the plaintiffs’ attorneys played video clips of K.G.M.’s deposition for the first time. She claims she has received more than 50 sexually explicit photos over Snapchat from people she didn’t know and that she experienced what she called “sexual grooming.” She also said “filters” on Instagram and Snapchat, which alter photos, contributed to her body dysmorphia and low self-image.

Other plaintiffs have said that social media caused or contributed to their anxiety, depression and suicidal urges. Some pointed to an obsession over “likes” keeping them up at night. Another said he used social media eight hours a day.

Should the case go to trial as planned, it would be the first time a court has heard arguments over whether or not social media is harmful and addictive to underage kids.

A similar action brought by 42 states is proceeding in federal court in San Francisco, albeit at a slower pace than in LA.

Follow @hillelaron