Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: The United States is experiencing a youth mental health crisis associated with the rise in social media pervasiveness. As a result, state attorneys general, school districts, and individuals across the nation have sued major social media companies, alleging that their platforms are harmful to youth and are defective by design. These suits have culminated in a large multi-district litigation against the social media companies that operate the world’s largest social media platforms: Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Snap (Snapchat), ByteDance (TikTok), and Google (YouTube). In November of 2023, in In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the defendant social media companies’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ product liability claims. The court held that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution barred some of the plaintiffs’ products liability claims but did not preclude others. Although § 230 has traditionally shielded social media companies from liability, products liability theory is an alternate cause of action that could help regulate online platforms. This Note argues that products liability law is an appropriate avenue for holding social media companies accountable for their role in the youth mental health crisis.
Source: Boston College Law Review
DOI: 10.70167/mqhj3279
Author: Millicent Ball
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W4409920877