Social media on trial: Four important cases to watch
Thousands of lawsuits in the US accuse social media platforms of harming users, especially children, and the outcomes could fundamentally change how these platforms operate. Four key cases are set to set legal precedents.
When social media exploded two decades ago, it was celebrated as a technology that would connect people and democratize information. Today, companies like Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Google (YouTube), Snapchat, TikTok, Discord, and Roblox face thousands of US lawsuits alleging they have instead caused harm, particularly to children. The results of these cases – whether settled or decided by juries – could reshape the industry forever.
According to Eric Talley, a law professor at Columbia Law School, the wave of litigation is being watched closely by regulators and lawmakers, influencing elections and legislation. Many cases are in California, home to most major platforms, and changes there often spread nationwide.
One major case is the Social Media Adolescent Addiction Multi-District Litigation, combining claims from over 1,000 California schools. The schools accuse Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok of designing addicting features that harm children's mental health and drain school resources. A trial for some claims is set for February.
Another key case is People of the State of California v. Meta, led by 29 states and set for trial in August. The states allege Meta violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting data from users under 13. They demand Meta block underage users and delete collected data, which is used for ad targeting and AI training.
The third case, John Doe v. Roblox et al., involves a 13-year-old boy who claims he was groomed on Roblox and Discord by an adult predator. The lawsuit argues the platforms are defectively designed and falsely marketed as safe. The case is on hold pending an appeal; if it proceeds to trial, it could force changes in age-gating and stranger interactions.
The fourth case, Forrest v. Meta, is unique: Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest sued Meta in 2022 for hosting scam ads that used his name to trick Australians. He argues Meta should not be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally grants platforms immunity. A ruling against Meta could upend decades of legal protections.
Attorney Adam J. Schwartz calls these "bellwether cases that will set the tone and tenor for shaping the law in the future."
