The Epoch Times
The Epoch Times
AD
The Epoch Times
Support Us
SHARE
USUS News

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over Youth Mental Health Crisis

Social media platforms are designed to addict children while also facilitating the spread of child sexual content, the lawsuit argues.
Copy
Facebook
X
Truth
Gettr
LinkedIn
Telegram
Email
Save
Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over Youth Mental Health Crisis
Social media apps on a smartphone in this file photo. Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images
Naveen Athrappully
By Naveen Athrappully
11/16/2023Updated: 11/16/2023
0:00

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Big Tech social media firms must face a lawsuit accusing the companies of designing platforms in a way that creates a “youth mental health crisis.”

The multidistrict litigation was brought against Facebook and Instagram (owned by Meta), TikTok (owned by ByteDance), Snapchat, and YouTube (owned by Google). It alleged that the defendants target children as a “core market” and design their platforms “to appeal to and addict them,” according to a Nov. 14 court filing.

As children are still developing impulse control and are uniquely susceptible to the harms that come with compulsive social media use, the tech firms created a “youth mental health crisis” through their platforms, the plaintiffs argue.

In addition, the lawsuit also accuses platforms of facilitating and contributing to the sexual exploitation of children, including the spread of child sex abuse materials (CSAM).

The social media platforms filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing to immunity and protections under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 exempts social media platforms from being liable for third-party content posted on their websites.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that while the First Amendment and Section 230 shield social media networks from some of the plaintiffs’ claims, other allegations made by the plaintiffs are valid.

Related Stories
TikTok Is Like ‘Digital Fentanyl’ for America’s Youth: Rep. Kat Cammack
11/14/2023
TikTok Is Like ‘Digital Fentanyl’ for America’s Youth: Rep. Kat Cammack
Protect Children Online or Face Being Blocked, Social Media Giants Told
11/9/2023
Protect Children Online or Face Being Blocked, Social Media Giants Told

The decision now allows the lawsuit to move forward.

“Defendants argue that the First Amendment protects them from liability for the speech they publish as well as for all choices they have made in disseminating them,” the judge wrote in her decision.

However, many of the violations alleged by the plaintiffs do “not constitute speech or expression, or publication of same,” she pointed out.

For instance, plaintiffs accused the social media companies of not providing effective parental controls to parents, not offering options for users to self-restrict time spent on a platform, not using robust age verification, and not implementing reporting protocols that would allow users to report CSAM and other such material.

“Addressing these defects would not require that defendants change how or what speech they disseminate,” Judge Rogers wrote.

Social Media Harms

During a hearing, the defendants also implied that making the reporting of CSAM material more accessible would necessitate that they remove such content, thus violating Section 230, Judge Rogers noted. She dismissed the argument.

“Receiving more reports does not require them to remove the content. They could respond by taking other steps, such as reporting the content to a government agency or providing relevant warnings,” the judge pointed out.

Judge Rogers affirmed that companies are legally obligated to make sure that they design reasonably safe products for users due to their status as product makers. They are also obliged to warn users about any known defects.
The litigation is a bellwether lawsuit, which is a small consolidation of multiple lawsuits that are taken from a larger group of similar cases. The bellwether lawsuit is tried first and acts as a practice run that could signal the future results of similar litigation, according to TorHoerman Law.
The litigation was filed on behalf of children who allegedly suffered negative mental, physical, and emotional health effects from using social media, including thoughts of suicide, depression, and anxiety. The lawsuit detailed the following attributes of social media platforms that contributed to this crisis:
  • An “endless” stream of content being shown to users, with platforms being designed for “maximizing the length of user sessions.”
  • Algorithms designed to “strategically time when they show content to users in order to maximize engagement.” For instance, Instagram may wait until a piece of content receives several likes before notifying a user about it. This results in the user’s dopamine reaction being intensified, plaintiffs argued.
  • Time limits on how long certain content is available to create a sense of urgency among users to engage with it.
  • Using “engagement-based algorithms that promote content to users based on the likelihood it will keep them engaged with and using the platform.”
  • Recommending accounts of minors to adult strangers while also offering private chat functions that could facilitate the exploitation of children by predators.
  • Making it more challenging to delete an account compared to creating it. This sets up barriers to children seeking to delete their accounts.

Attorneys React to Ruling

In a joint statement, Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren, and Chris Seeger, lead attorneys for the consumer plaintiffs, called Judge Rogers’ decision a “significant victory for the families that have been harmed by the dangers of social media,” according to CNN.

“The court’s ruling repudiates Big Tech’s overbroad and incorrect claim that Section 230 or the First Amendment should grant them blanket immunity for the harm they cause to their users. The mental health crisis among American youth is a direct result of these defendants’ intentional design of harmful product features,” they said.

A Google spokesperson called the allegations in the lawsuit “simply not true.” The spokesperson insisted that the company has built “age-appropriate experiences for kids and families on YouTube, and provide parents with robust controls.”

The lawsuit comes as some states have taken measures to protect minors on social media. In March, Utah signed into law two bills setting limits on social media use for minors.

One bill requires social media platforms to verify that users in the state are at least 18 years old. Minors will need permission from parents to open an account.

The Epoch Times reached out to Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat for comment.

Naveen Athrappully
Naveen Athrappully
Author
Naveen Athrappully is a news reporter covering business and world events at The Epoch Times.
Author’s Selected Articles

Russia Targeting, Breaching Western Organizations Aiding Ukraine: CISA Joint Advisory

May 22, 2025
Russia Targeting, Breaching Western Organizations Aiding Ukraine: CISA Joint Advisory

Senate Votes to Consider Repealing California’s Rule Phasing Out Gas Vehicles

May 22, 2025
Senate Votes to Consider Repealing California’s Rule Phasing Out Gas Vehicles

Crude Oil Prices Decline Amid Unexpected US Inventory Buildup

May 22, 2025
Crude Oil Prices Decline Amid Unexpected US Inventory Buildup

Air Traffic Control System ‘Failing’ Americans, Airline CEOs Warn Congress

May 21, 2025
Air Traffic Control System ‘Failing’ Americans, Airline CEOs Warn Congress
Related Topics
social media
youth mental health
Save
The Epoch Times
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 The Epoch Times Association Inc. All Rights Reserved.