Judge isn’t kiddin’
Denies Big Tech bid to nix ‘hooked children’ suits
A California judge on Tuesday rejected efforts by social media companies to toss nationwide lawsuits accusing the Big Tech behemoths of illegally enticing and then getting millions of kids hooked on their platforms — damaging their mental health.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland ruled against Alphabet, which operates Google and YouTube; Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram; ByteDance, which operates TikTok; and Snap, which operates Snapchat.
The decision covers hundreds of lawsuits filed on behalf of individual children who allegedly suffered negative physical, mental and emotional health effects from social media use including anxiety, depression and occasionally suicide.
“Today’s decision is a significant victory for the families that have been harmed by the dangers of social media,” the plaintiffs’ lead lawyers — Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren and Chris Seeger — said.
The litigation seeks, among other remedies, damages and a halt to the defendants’ alleged wrongful practices.
More than 140 school districts have filed similar lawsuits against the industry, and 42 states plus the District of Columbia last month sued Meta for youth addiction to its social-media platforms.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda told The Post “the allegations in these complaints are simply not true.”
Alphabet, Meta, ByteDance and Snap didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Rogers shot down the companies’ claim that they are protected under Section 230, a provision of the federal Communications Decency Act that shields Internet companies from thirdparty actions.
“Nothing in Section 230 or existing case law indicates that Section 230 only applies to publishing where a defendant’s only intent is to convey or curate information,” Rogers ruled. “To hold otherwise would essentially be to hold that any website that generates revenue by maintaining the interest of users and publishes content with the intent of meeting this goal, would no longer be entitled to Section 230 immunity.”