US Court Orders Meta, Google, TikTok to Face Lawsuits for Social Media Addiction
US Appeals Court Ruling and Ongoing Litigation
By Diana Novak Jones
Aug 10 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday allowed thousands of lawsuits to move forward against Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok, and other social media companies over claims they designed their products to be addictive to young users.
Appeals Court Decision
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the companies’ bid to reverse a lower court’s ruling forcing them to face more than 3,000 lawsuits over the claims filed in federal court, concluding that the appeal came too early in the litigation.
Section 230 Defense and Legal Arguments
The defendants, which also include Snap Inc's Snapchat, had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 -- which generally shields online companies from claims over content posted by their users - also bars lawsuits claiming they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.
Most appeals come after a case has concluded with a ruling or a verdict. Meta had argued that Section 230 provided it broad immunity and that it should be able to appeal the lower court's decision immediately. But the 9th Circuit said Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from lawsuits, so the appeal was premature.
Trial Proceedings and Immediate Implications
The court also denied Meta's bid to postpone a trial beginning Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by 29 state attorneys general alleging that the company illegally collected and used children’s data, designed their social media platforms to keep young users hooked, and misled consumers about their safety. The company had argued that the trial couldn't go forward while the appeal had been outstanding.
A representative for Meta and a spokesperson for the lead attorneys in the appeal did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Thousands of Lawsuits and Their Impact
THOUSANDS OF LAWSUITS
Allegations and Plaintiffs
Filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege that social media companies intentionally addicted young users, contributing to surging depression, anxiety and body-image issues and a broader mental health crisis among American youth in recent years.
Plaintiffs' Arguments Against Section 230
Parents, school districts, states and other plaintiffs had argued that the trial court’s ruling was not final and therefore could not be appealed. But they also objected to the companies’ arguments about Section 230, saying it does not cover claims related to how they operate and design their products.
Scope of Litigation
The cases, which have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies appealed Rogers’ orders in 2023 and 2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward.
The companies are facing hundreds of additional lawsuits over similar claims in state court, with approximately 3,300 of them in a consolidated proceeding in California state court.
Recent Verdicts and Financial Penalties
In the first lawsuit to go to trial in the California litigation, and a closely watched test of how juries might respond to similar claims, a Los Angeles jury in March found Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that harm young people. The jury awarded $6 million to a now‑20‑year‑old woman who says she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.
And, Meta lost both phases of a landmark lawsuit brought by New Mexico in state court. A jury in March ordered it to pay $375 million after finding it had misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. On Thursday, a judge found Meta had created a public nuisance and ordered it to pay an additional $567 million and implement youth-safety measures.
Companies' Response and Future Appeals
Both Meta and Google, which have denied the claims in those cases, said they would appeal.
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones in Chicago, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Matthew Lewis and David Bario)