OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA / RankWire.AI / – A significant number of lawsuits accusing major social media platforms of fostering harmful and addictive behaviors among young users are permitted to proceed in federal courts, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting an initial appeal from Meta Platforms and TikTok on Aug. 10. This decision sustains over 3,000 consolidated federal cases currently under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, where plaintiffs claim that certain features of these platforms promoted compulsive use, contributing to mental health issues among children and teenagers.
Both Meta and TikTok sought to have the lower court decisions involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act reviewed immediately through the appellate process. The appellate court clarified that Section 230 serves as a defense against liability rather than granting immunity from lawsuits, leading to the conclusion that the companies could not pursue such an appeal at this stage. Importantly, the ruling did not decide if Section 230 would ultimately prevent any claims from moving forward; rather, it allowed the ongoing federal cases to continue under the existing orders issued by the trial court.
The ongoing litigation encompasses claims from families, individual plaintiffs, school districts, cities, and various state governments. Additionally, plaintiffs have filed suits against Alphabet’s Google, owner of YouTube, and Snap, operator of Snapchat, arguing that these social media giants incorporated features designed to encourage repeated engagement by young users. The allegations include claims that these platforms contributed to depression, anxiety, body image concerns, and other mental health problems. The defendants have contested these allegations, and around 3,300 related cases remain consolidated in California state court as well.
States pursue independent legal action against Meta
Meta is also facing a separate federal lawsuit initiated by 29 state attorneys general, with jury selection scheduled for Aug. 12 in Oakland and the trial set to commence on Aug. 17. The states accuse Meta of unlawfully collecting and using children’s personal data, while also alleging that Facebook and Instagram included features designed to foster compulsive use among minors. The case also claims that Meta misled consumers regarding safety protections on its platforms, though Meta has denied any wrongdoing.
Legal claims have been brought under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act along with various state consumer protection laws, with California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey also filing state law claims within the same case. A federal judge previously declined to dismiss the case before trial, citing disputes requiring further judicial proceedings. Several states have presented calculations for potential financial penalties if they succeed, though Meta has challenged both these figures and the legal basis for the amounts requested.
Notable rulings broaden the scope of youth safety litigation
The larger social media legal battles have already yielded impactful rulings against the involved technology companies. On Aug. 6, a judge in New Mexico ordered Meta to allocate $567 million toward a youth mental health fund and related initiatives, while also imposing safety measures on Facebook and Instagram for five years. This decision followed an earlier jury verdict in March that imposed a $375 million civil penalty, together resulting in a combined financial exposure of $942 million for Meta within that state’s legal proceedings.
In addition, a jury in Los Angeles issued a verdict against Meta and Google in March, ruling on a separate lawsuit concerning social media addiction. The jury found the companies negligent in designing Instagram and YouTube, awarding the plaintiff $6 million, with allegations that childhood use of these platforms led to addiction and mental health problems. Before the trial, TikTok and Snap settled with the plaintiff under undisclosed terms, while Meta and Google announced their intention to appeal the verdict.