A jury in Los Angeles, CA this past week held Meta (Facebook) and YouTube liable for a 20-year-old woman’s personal life difficulties. The legal theory upon which the jury based its verdict was a novel, likely stretched, use of a product liability law. The $6 million verdict against the two companies is the first of approximately 3,000 lawsuits filed in California courts that seek to blame and hold responsible social media companies for the social and personal difficulties of young people. The multimillion-dollar award may increase significantly if jurors determine that the companies acted with malice or highly egregious conduct. School districts and more than 40 state Attorneys General have also brought suits to “compensate” young people for their social ills.
I have written before that as so-called “private” companies, Twitter/X, Facebook, and Google are not restricted by the First Amendment, which is a restraint on government actors. But the truth is these tech giants are really not private companies in the traditional sense because they enjoy an enormous and lucrative federal benefit: immunity from legal liability for defamatory content that may be posted on their sites by third parties. This benefit is contained in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and it has been a game changer.
I also previously noted that Big Tech has demonstrated a clear ideological (Leftist) bias, and Congress and regulators should take steps soon to ensure that the great legal and economic benefits these social media platforms were given in 1996—when these fledgling companies promised to be fair and impartial clearinghouses of all speech and content—are curtailed until a marketplace of ideas truly returns. They shouldn’t be allowed to selectively censor (usually conservative) speech.
However, the Los Angeles verdict underscores a different concern.
In this case, the plaintiffs, in an effort to get around the Section 230 bar to legal liability, argued under a products liability theory that Meta and Google were “negligent” in how they designed, featured, and presented their sites.
How so?
By asserting that, not the posts themselves but features such as the endless scrolling (as though anyone has control over that but the individual doing the scrolling) and the “like” button, allegedly harm young people. The plaintiff attorneys have also argued that (reminiscent of the Big Tobacco cases of the 1980s and 90s) these companies knew that these platforms were “addictive” to children.
That seems to be quite a reach.
Firstly, there is no real evidence of a link between social media platforms and the mental health of young people. This was similar to the argument that Tipper Gore made in the 1980s that the negative and dark messages contained in rock music lyrics were corrupting our youth. It is similar to the argument made much more recently that violent video games prompt young boys to procure guns and go shoot up their schools.
Please know I am not suggesting that all of these factors don’t, in some way or another, contribute to the cultural cesspool in which our children find themselves. No doubt, they do. But, for the purpose of providing evidence of a causal link in a court of law between these social media platforms and their content directly causing young people’s depression, insecurities, and mental health challenges generally, the proof is just not there.
For example, what other factors in a young person’s life are also contributing to their struggles? Are they abused? Are they in a poor home environment? Are they marginalized in their school? Are there no positive role models in their lives to mentor and nurture them?
Congress has debated for years legislation that would protect young people online, from stronger parental controls to privacy settings. Many already impose an age restriction. Those seem like very positive steps but, in my view, are only addressing the symptoms. The broader answer is that parents battle every day to protect their children from the dangers and excesses that are instantly available to them online. Sadly, though, this positive parenting is often immediately undermined in their schools and in the community, generally.
That is what must change. It has always been difficult to grow up. Young people have always rebelled against authority. The difference was in the past the family unit and churches—and faith in God—served as buffers and guardrails for young people. Unfortunately, much of that no longer shields young people. We should endeavor to bring those great virtues back.
Shreveport attorney, Royal Alexander, worked in D.C. in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 8 years for two different Members of Congress from Louisiana.