US appeals court allows addiction cases against social media companies to proceed

A US appeals court on Monday allowed thousands of lawsuits to move forward against Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s Google, ByteDance’s TikTok and other social media companies over claims they designed their products to be addictive to young users.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the companies’ bid to reverse a lower court’s ruling forcing them to face some 2,400 lawsuits over the claims filed in federal court.

The companies, which also include Snap Inc’s Snapchat, had argued that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which shields them from lawsuits over content posted by their users — also shields them from allegations that they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.

But the court said the appeal was brought too early for it to weigh in, a problem the judges flagged during oral arguments in the case. Most appeals come after a trial in the case has concluded, so the judge’s decision would be reviewed at that time, the judges said.

Filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege that social media companies intentionally addicted young users, contributing to surging depression, anxiety and body-image issues and a broader mental health crisis among American youth in recent years.

The plaintiffs — which include parents, school districts and states — had argued that the trial court’s ruling was not final and therefore could not be appealed. But they also objected to the companies’ arguments about the federal law, saying it does not cover claims related to how they operate and design their products.

The cases, which have been centralised before US District judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies appealed against Rogers’ orders in 2023 and 2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward.

At arguments in the case on January 6, the appeals court judges expressed scepticism that it was an appropriate time to weigh in on the case. But they also had questions about the companies’ argument that they were shielded from the claims by federal law, with one judge noting that if Congress had intended for the law to provide a shield for the companies from broad liability it could have said so explicitly.

The companies are facing hundreds of additional lawsuits over similar claims in state court, with about 3,300 of them in a consolidated proceeding in California state court.

In the first lawsuit to go to trial in the California litigation, and a closely watched test of how juries might respond to similar claims, a Los Angeles jury in March found Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that harm young people. The jury awarded $6m to a now‑20‑year‑old woman who says she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.

In a separate verdict also handed down in March, Meta was found liable and ordered to pay $375m to New Mexico after a jury agreed with the state that the company misled users about the safety of its platforms and enabled child sexual exploitation. The judge overseeing that case is currently considering whether to order the company to make changes to its platforms and pay additional damages.

Both Meta and Google, which have denied the claims in those cases, said they would appeal.

The appeals are expected to centre on the question of whether section 230 applies to claims over platform design, a question experts say could have broad implications for the tech industry in general.