Public Nuisance Lawsuits Against Meta Target Child Addiction Concerns

A federal judge has ruled that school districts and local governments can continue their public nuisance claims against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, along with other social media platforms. These claims allege that the companies have designed their platforms to be addictive, particularly to young users.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, based in Oakland, decided against dismissing the claims, except in four states—Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina—where supreme courts have shown hesitance to expand public nuisance law beyond traditional contexts. This ruling marks the fourth in ongoing litigation involving personal injury plaintiffs, state attorneys general, school districts, and local governments, all asserting that social media is tied to a youth mental health crisis.

In earlier rulings, Judge Gonzalez Rogers permitted school districts to pursue negligence claims, subject to the limitations of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Claims related to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, filed by 34 states, were also allowed to proceed, with similar restrictions concerning Section 230’s protections for online platforms.

Other defendants in this case include Alphabet Inc. (owner of Google and YouTube), Snap Inc. (owner of Snapchat), and ByteDance Ltd. (owner of TikTok). The claims against the social media companies are comparable to lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors, which sought damages for the addiction crisis stemming from over-prescription practices driven by profit motives.

Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the defendants’ argument that their actions do not interfere with the public rights of school districts, stating that the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs directly stem from the companies’ conduct. “Every court that has held that school districts can bring public nuisance claims contradicts the defendants’ assertion,” she said, emphasizing the direct link between the companies’ actions and the resulting public health issues.

In their master complaint filed last year, school districts and local governments argue that they bear the brunt of the impact caused by social media’s design targeting young audiences. They contend that they are forced to divert resources to manage the attention of students, who are increasingly reliant on these platforms.

“Public school districts have been compelled to address the challenges posed by the use of these platforms during classes, as well as the growing demands for mental health support,” they assert. The districts claim they have had to alter lesson plans to better accommodate a generation affected by the rapid changes in attention spans and critical thinking abilities due to pervasive social media use.

Moreover, school districts emphasize their role as primary mental health service providers for youth, stating that combatting the alleged mental health crisis linked to social media detracts from their core mission of education in safe environments.

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Meta expressed disagreement, claiming it contradicts a California state court ruling and insisting that the company is committed to supporting young users while vigorously defending against these legal claims.

Additionally, a lawsuit involving 33 states, including California, accuses Meta of crafting a business model designed to maximize engagement among younger users, employing features that are psychologically manipulative. The states allege that Meta has minimized reports regarding user harms and neglected to address the negative impacts of its platforms.

Meanwhile, the social media companies are also contesting another consolidated case in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where more than a thousand lawsuits have been filed, all linking their apps to the rising rates of teen addiction and mental health issues.