By Diana Novak Jones
Jan 26 (Reuters) – Lawyers for the Meta platform and other social media companies asked a federal judge in California on Monday to block several school districts from suing the companies, arguing that federal law protects them from claims they intentionally preyed on young users.
In a hearing before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, the company’s lawyers clashed with counsel for six school districts from across the country, who argued that the platform’s design harmed students’ mental health and forced the districts to spend money and staff time.
The companies asked the judge to order that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram from liability for user-generated content, prevent the cases from proceeding to the first trial in federal court over the claims.
Jonathan Blavin, an attorney for the social media companies, said the schools’ allegations rely on evidence that includes such content, putting the claims within the protections of Section 230.
“If that evidence is completely excluded, I think the record here is incredibly thin,” Blavin said. “It’s not there.”
Attorneys for the school districts countered that their claims are not based on user-content but on platform features they say are intentionally designed to keep youth on social media sites for as long as possible.
Andre Mura, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said their experts had examined extensive studies of students using social media that supported the conclusion that they were harmed.
“The literature shows an increased risk of damage not based on materials,” he said.
Thousands of cases in state, federal courts
Meta, Snapchat and parent Snap Inc., YouTube and parent Alphabet Inc., and TikTok and parent ByteDance are both facing thousands of lawsuits in federal and state courts alleging they intentionally designed their platforms to provide addictive features to children and teens, fueling mental health crises.
The first trial to test the claims in state court is scheduled for this week in Los Angeles.
The federal cases before Rogers are consolidated into multidistrict litigation and include cases brought by families, school districts and state governments.
Monday’s hearing focused solely on lawsuits filed by school districts, which claim they are financially harmed by failing to manage student mental health issues and social problems such as cyberbullying. Rogers is considering whether to enter judgment for the companies in six of those cases, so-called “bellwether” or test cases, ahead of the first trial in federal court, which is scheduled to begin in June.
Bellwether trials are used to gauge how juries might respond to similar claims and help establish settlement values for other similar cases at trial.
In rulings on the companies’ moves to dismiss in 2023 and 2024, Rogers said the cases could go forward, but Section 230 limited many of their claims, including some about specific features of the platforms.
On Monday, Rogers agreed that the plaintiffs had more evidence that appeared to be material and said that if the cases move forward, there will be a long debate about what can be shown to the jury.
But even if the actual material played some role, Rogers said jurors were often asked to examine the issue with multiple factors and determine which was primarily at fault.
“It’s not like we have white and yellow, it’s all scattered together,” Rogers said. “This is a very common situation. Why should it be any different?”
The case is In re: Social Media Juvenile Addiction/Personal Injury Product Liability Lawsuit, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:22-md-03047.
For Plaintiff: Andre Mura of Gibbs Mura; Previn Warren of Motley Rice
For Defendants: Jonathan Blavin of Munger Tolles & Olson; Ashley Hardin of Williams & Connolly; Christian Pistili of Covington and Burling
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones)
