A California federal judge who is overseeing multidistrict litigation alleging that social media companies’ platforms lead to addictive behavior among youths has likened these cases to the multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement of 1998.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California made the comparison last month during discussions about the possible dismissal of amended claims by the defendants, which include Meta, Instagram, Snap, TikTok, YouTube and Google.
No transcripts of the court proceedings are available, but legal media sources such as Courthouse News reported that the judge’s remark came after a plaintiff’s attorney indicated some plaintiffs were so addicted to the apps that even a company owner’s warning might not have stopped them.
Rogers suggested that the social media cases were similar to earlier lawsuits against tobacco companies because even when product users understood the health dangers, they continued to use the products.
A Meta representative rejected Rogers’ comment.
“This is an absurd comparison,” the spokesperson said in an email to the Southern California Record. “Unlike tobacco, Meta’s apps add value to people’s lives.”
The American Tort Reform Federation (ATRF) has also criticized the comparison of the social media cases, which include scores of individual and school-district plaintiffs, to the landmark tobacco lawsuits and settlement.
“The judge appears likely to deny Meta’s motion to dismiss the sprawling multidistrict litigation seeking to hold the company liable for failure to warn consumers about the addictive nature of social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook,” the ATRF said in a website post.
Any litigation launched by plaintiffs’ attorneys is the wrong method to resolve major concerns involving public health, the federation said.
“Regulators, public health officials and those accountable to the public should be responsible for implementing effective solutions to address any such problems,” the ATRF said. “It requires informed action and the prioritization of public safety and health. And it is important to recognize that lawmakers and officials must protect and balance individual rights and the broader public interest without providing a windfall of legal fees for trial lawyers.”
Complex litigation can also serve to delay society’s ability to deal with pressing social problems, such as the opioid crisis, according to the ATRF.
“There is no reason to think this litigation will be any different,” the federation said. “Those in positions of leadership and public accountability must act in the public interest. It should not be left to the courts to do so in cases driven by profit-seeking lawyers.”
The context of Rogers’ apparent skepticism about dismissing the claims against social-media defendants is important, according to Miller & Zois LLC, a personal-injury law firm.
“This analogy suggests that the judge may view the social media addiction claims with a degree of seriousness similar to that of past tobacco litigation, which would be a very good sign for plaintiffs that the court is willing to dig in and explore the intricacies of addiction and liability in the digital age,” the law firm said in a website post.
This week the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants’ amended motion to dismiss the master complaint set forth by school districts and other government bodies. The plaintiffs’ claims are well within the reach of public nuisance laws, and the defendants’ should have foreseen the addictive nature of their platforms and their impact on higher truancy, classroom disruptions and decreased academic performance, the plaintiffs’ filing states.