A group of youngsters who say they suffer from addiction to social media can sue Facebook, TikTok and other platforms for practices allegedly intended to induce them to spend more time online, increasing the providers’ advertising revenue while causing mental harm to the youths, a judge ruled Friday.
The companies denied harmful practices but argued that their actions were legally protected by the First Amendment and a federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that shields online providers from liability for postings by their users. But Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl said the companies were being sued for their own conduct.
“Where a provider manipulates third-party content in a manner that may injure a user, Section 230 does not provide immunity,” Kuhl wrote in a ruling that refused to dismiss the suit. She said the youths could try to prove that the companies were negligent, knew of the harm they could cause and concealed it from the youngsters and their parents.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said it was the first ruling in the nation to allow a suit for “social media addiction.”
“This is a monumental day for children who have been harmed by these social media companies,” the attorneys, led by Joseph VanZandt, Emily Jeffcott and Brian Panish, said in a statement. “This case is about defendants’ despicable and intentional conduct with conscious disregard for the health and safety of children.”
That was disputed by a spokesperson for Google, whose YouTube video channel is a defendant in the case. Instagram and Snapchat are also defendants.
“Protecting kids across our platforms has always been core to our work,” said the spokesperson, Jose Castaneda. “In collaboration with child development specialists, we have built age-appropriate experiences for kids and families on YouTube, and provide parents with robust controls.”
The suit said the companies collect data on their users and design programs to appeal to “a specific user’s craving.”
The plaintiffs cited Snapchat’s 2020 “Spotlight” program that allowed users to post videos that anyone could see, a feature that they said induced them to spend more time on the platform. They said they were also attracted by features encouraging them to post photos using tools that alter their appearances.
The youths were “subjected to endless scrolls of videos and notifications at all hours of the day and night,” the suit said. As a consequence of their addictions, their lawyers said, the youths suffered anxiety, depression and thoughts of suicide.
Kuhl said the central issue in the case is “whether a social media company may maximize its own benefit and advertising revenue at the expense of the health of minor users of that social media company’s applications or websites.”
The answer is no, she said, if the company ignored evidence of the harm it could cause or fraudulently concealed its potential impact.
Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @BobEgelko
