Latest Developments in Social Media Addiction Litigation

Bookmark this page for the most up-to-date news on social media addiction litigation. As the legal landscape evolves, we’ll keep you informed about key developments, case filings, and legal strategies. Stay ahead of the curve and be prepared to represent your clients effectively in this emerging area of law.

Litigation continues against social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat, alleging they contribute to mental health problems in young users. Plaintiffs, including individuals, local governments, and school districts, claim these companies knowingly designed addictive features, especially targeting adolescents. These lawsuits are proceeding in both federal and state courts across the United States.

Nearly 600 federal cases involving social media addiction were consolidated in October, 2022, into a social media addiction MDL (multidistrict litigation) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; they are being managed by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.  

Another group of over 800 social media litigation cases have been consolidated as Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) in California’s Los Angeles Superior Court before Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl.

If your class action law firm needs outsourced case management services, contact Verus to discuss our class action support services.

On the Federal court website created for MDL 3047, In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Liability Litigation, the court describes the litigation:

This is a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) involving various defendants such as Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram LLC, Snap, Inc., TikTok, Inc., ByteDance, Inc., YouTube LLC, Google LLC, and Alphabet Inc. Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants’ social media platforms are defective because they are designed to maximize screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents.  As alleged, this conduct results in various emotional and physical harms, including death.

The Master Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court makes similar claims, alleging that social media companies deliberately embedded addictive features in their products, exploiting the vulnerability of children and adolescents for profit, mirroring tactics used by the gambling and tobacco industries.

• In the past decade, Americans’ engagement with social media grew exponentially, nowhere more dramatically than among our country’s youth. That explosion in usage is no accident. It is the result of Defendants’ studied efforts to induce young people to compulsively use their products—Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue. Defendants know children are in a developmental stage that leaves them particularly vulnerable to the addictive effects of these features. Defendants target them anyway, in pursuit of additional profit.

Plaintiffs in both the federal and state cases have alleged that, as a result of them using the defendants’’ platforms, they suffer from a range of injuries including depression, eating disorders, addiction, insomnia, anxiety, and self-harm, including suicide. 

Defendants in the social media addiction cases have presented a number of arguments, including the contention that under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they are not responsible for the content posted on their platforms by their users. 

On October 13, 2023, Judge Kuhl ruled against the social media companies in the JCCP cases, finding that although the platforms are not products, the claims brought by the plaintiffs are not barred by either the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Kuhl determined that their claims that the use of social media by teenagers caused addiction and mental health problems could move forward. Plaintiffs are also alleging that the social media giants intentionally manipulate the ways in which users engage with the platforms and failed to warn users about the risks inherent in their use, exhibiting disregard for their health and safety.

Similarly, in November 2023, Judge Rogers ordered that Meta and the other defendant social media companies would have to face negligence claims brought by plaintiffs in the MDL, rejecting the companies’ argument that they were protected by Section 230 and the First Amendment. In April 2024, the defendant Meta filed another motion to dismiss claims being made by over 30 U.S. states based in part on Section 230. Last week, Judge Rogers denied the motion for the most part, but placed limits on the states’ claims acknowledging that Section 230 does offer some protection to the social media company. 

The first social media addiction bellwether case is anticipated in June, 2025.

The former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued a health advisory highlighting the significant mental health risks of social media for children and adolescents. The advisory emphasized the widespread use of social media among youth, with up to 95% of 13-17 year olds using a platform and over a third using social media “almost constantly”. The report detailed the detrimental effects, including increased risk of depression and anxiety, especially for girls, sleep problems, online harassment, poor body image, and addiction. It called for urgent action from policymakers, tech companies, researchers, families, and young people to address this “national youth mental health crisis.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, addressing the scope of Section 230 protections. Gonzalez focused on algorithmic content promotion and whether it constitutes speech distinct from user-generated content. Taamneh addressed platforms’ responsibility for failing to remove terrorist content. These cases could significantly impact the legal landscape of the internet and social media platforms’ liability. The Court expressed skepticism about altering the status quo and raised concerns about a potential surge in litigation. Section 230 is also relevant to lawsuits alleging social media platforms target vulnerable adolescents with harmful content.

Judge Rogers approved the leadership team for MDL 3047, including co-lead and liaison counsel, and a plaintiffs’ steering committee. Previously, Meta requested consolidation of social media addiction lawsuits, arguing content is not a “product” and invoking Section 230. Other companies like TikTok opposed consolidation. Plaintiffs also requested JPML consolidation of cases, arguing similar claims against social media companies for addictive design and failure to warn about risks. These consolidated actions and leadership appointments mark a significant step in the litigation process.

State attorneys general are investigating social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat for potential violations of children’s safety and privacy protections, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Concerns include manipulation of children, promotion of harmful content, and knowledge of these risks. Lawmakers are also proposing legislation to hold social media companies accountable for addiction and harm to children, such as California’s A.B. 2408. Groups like the Social Media Victims Law Center are pursuing litigation to raise awareness and advocate for consumer safety. Recent settlements, like the one with TikTok for COPPA violations, demonstrate the ongoing legal challenges facing social media companies.

Navigating the complexities of MDL 3047 and other social media addiction litigation requires experienced support. Verus offers specialized case management services for multi-district litigation, ensuring efficient and compliant handling of your cases.