Social Media Addiction Lawsuit targets Meta, TikTok
A major social media addiction lawsuit is taking on Meta, TikTok, and more, accusing them of making their platforms dangerously addictive. With billions at stake, this case could change how Big Tech is held accountable.
Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Targets Big Tech Giants
by CHRIS CASTLE via Music Tech Policy
The Social Media Addiction Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 3047) involves 815 plaintiffs, including individual users, school districts, and 33 state attorneys general, against major social media companies like Meta Platforms (Facebook and Instagram), Snap Inc. (Snapchat), TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., YouTube LLC, and Google LLC.
MDL-3047-Personal-Injury-Plaintiffs-Second-Amended-Master-ComplaintDownload
Let’s not forget that advertisers and their agencies are the paymasters of social media. It is interesting that in litigation derived from an advertising-driven hierarchy, no advertisers have been sued so far in this case. Let’s not forget that the FTC went after Joe Camel in 1997.
It’s also kind of extraordinary how little press coverage this case has gotten…or maybe not so remarkable. Ahem…
This MDL is relevant to the music business because the victims in many of the combined cases were drawn to the platforms because of their interest in artists and their music. So this is what happens to our fans. We drive them to social media and they get monetized, commoditized, and addicted. And some of them don’t make it back.
The MDL has that tobacco addiction ring to it, so let’s consider the potential damages and the plaintiffs’ claims in this case compared to the tobacco cases. (And for those reading along at home, that’s the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 that banned the use of Joe Camel and allowed the dismissal of the FTC complaint in 1999.)
DAMAGES
The potential damages in the MDL could be substantial, given the wide range of claims and the number of plaintiffs involved. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for various harms, including emotional distress, mental health issues, and other damages related to social media addiction. The damages claims are against the companies, not particular executives or board members. So far, Mark Zuckerberg has avoided personal liability in 25 of the cases, but despite claims against him personally being dismissed, there is a long way to go and discovery continues.
While the exact amount of potential damages hasn’t been determined, it could include:
- Compensatory Damages: These are intended to compensate plaintiffs for their actual losses, such as medical expenses, therapy costs, and other related expenses.
- Punitive Damages: These are intended to punish the defendants for their alleged misconduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. Punitive damages could be significant if the court finds that the social media companies acted recklessly or with gross negligence. One of the problems with suing the richest corporations in commercial history is that any punitive damages award would have to be many billions in order to discourage the behavior, or as Voltaire said of Admiral Bing’s hanging, “to encourage the others.”
- Class Action Settlements: If the MDL proceeds as a class action, the total damages could be divided among the class members, potentially resulting in smaller individual payouts but a larger overall settlement.
The final amount will, of course, depend on the outcomes of the individual cases within the MDL, the strength of the plaintiffs’ arguments, and the success of defenses raised by the social media companies. Let’s take a high level look at those claims and defenses.
KEY CLAIMS AND DEFENSES:
1. DEFECTIVE DESIGN
Plaintiffs’ Argument: The social media platforms are intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and screen time, particularly targeting adolescents. Plaintiffs allege that features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, and personalized content recommendations from the algocrats are intended and designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, leading to compulsive use and addiction. And big money in advertising.
Defense: The social media companies argue that their platforms are designed to provide a positive user experience and that features like infinite scrolling and personalized content are intended to enhance user engagement, not to cause addiction. They claim that users have the autonomy to control their usage and that the platforms offer various tools to manage screen time. Because it’s never the company’s fault no matter how many times you watched The Social Dilemma.
2. EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL HARM
Plaintiffs’ Argument: The addictive nature of these platforms allegedly causes significant emotional and physical harm to users, especially minors. Plaintiffs claim that excessive use of social media leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation. In extreme cases, there have been reports of deaths linked to social media addiction.
Defense: The companies assert that they are not responsible for the emotional and physical harm claimed by the plaintiffs. This is kind of like a pimp saying “She walked into a door” to explain the black eyes. The tech giants argue that many factors contribute to mental health issues and that it is not solely the use of social media that causes these problems. They also emphasize that they provide resources and support for mental health within their platforms. The defendants are trying to find a loophole to save them because social media addiction is a mental illness rather than a physical one. So because a user kills themselves instead of developing cancer, the algocrats want to dodge the liability.
3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
Plaintiffs’ Argument: Plaintiffs argue that social media companies engaged in deceptive practices by not adequately informing users, particularly minors, about the risks associated with prolonged use of their platforms. They claim that the companies concealed information about the potential for addiction and mental health issues, misleading users into believing that their platforms were safe and beneficial.
Defense: The social media companies contend that they have not engaged in deceptive practices. They argue that they provide clear information about the potential risks of using their platforms and that they take steps to inform users, especially minors, about the importance of responsible usage. They also highlight their efforts to promote digital well-being.
4. NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE
Plaintiffs’ Argument: School districts and local governments argue that social media addiction has led to significant disruptions and expenses. They claim that the companies’ negligence in designing addictive platforms constitutes a public nuisance, as it affects the well-being and productivity of students and the community at large.
Defense: The companies argue that they are not negligent and that their platforms do not constitute a public nuisance. They claim that they have implemented various measures to ensure user safety and that they are not responsible for the actions of individual users. They also argue that the claims of public nuisance are unfounded and lack legal merit. Sounds kind of like graduated response and DMCA programs, yes? We’re screwing you, but we’re so careful about. We ain’t pimpin’.
5. VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Plaintiffs’ Argument: State attorneys general have brought claims under consumer protection laws, alleging that social media companies misled users about the dangers of their platforms. They argue that the companies’ marketing and promotional materials downplayed the risks of addiction and mental health issues, violating state consumer protection statutes.
Defense: The social media companies assert that they comply with consumer protection laws and that their marketing and promotional materials are not misleading. They argue that they provide accurate information about their platforms and that they are transparent about the potential risks associated with their use. They also claim that they are not liable for any alleged violations of consumer protection laws.
THE RETURN OF JOE CAMEL
The MDL is reminiscent of the mass tort litigation against tobacco companies that lead to the multi-billion dollar tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
SIMILARITIES:
- Public Health Concerns: Both cases involve allegations that companies prioritized profits over public health. In the tobacco settlements, cigarette manufacturers were accused of downplaying the health risks of smoking. Similarly, social media companies are accused of designing addictive platforms without adequately warning users about the risks of addiction and mental health issues.
- Mass Tort Litigation: Both cases involve mass tort litigation, where numerous plaintiffs have joined together to file lawsuits against large corporations. This allows for the consolidation of similar claims to streamline the legal process.
- Government Involvement: Both cases have seen significant involvement from state attorneys general and other government entities. In the tobacco settlements, state attorneys general played a crucial role in negotiating the settlements. In the social media MDL, state attorneys general have also filed claims against social media companies.
DIFFERENCES:
- Nature of Harm: The tobacco settlements primarily focused on physical health harms caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and heart disease. The social media MDL, on the other hand, focuses on emotional and mental health harms, such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.
- Regulatory Environment: The tobacco industry faced a different regulatory environment in the 1990s, with fewer restrictions on advertising and marketing to minors. In contrast, social media companies operate in a more regulated environment, with laws and guidelines aimed at protecting minors from harmful content–which are like locks, they protect you from the honest people.
- Settlement Outcomes: The tobacco settlements resulted in significant financial payouts from cigarette manufacturers to states and individuals, along with strict advertising and marketing restrictions.
- Size of Tobacco Companies vs. Social Media Companies:
Top 5 Tobacco Companies: Philip Morris International: $188.8 billion; Altria Group: $88.8 billion; British American Tobacco: $80.0 billion; ITC Ltd: $69.8 billion; Japan Tobacco: $45.9 billion
Social Media Defendant Companies:
Meta Platforms (Facebook): $884.9 billion; Alphabet Inc (Google): $1,250.7 billion; Amazon.com Inc: $1,151.2 billion; Snap: $20.07 billion; Bytedance: $223 billion
We can see that the MDL defendants have vastly larger market capitalizations than the tobacco companies which may demonstrate the value of social media addiction, safe harbors and political clout. But even so, in order for a damages award to get their attention, it’s going to have to have an awful lot of zeros.
It’s worth noting that a number of the claims against social media companies sound very similar to techniques that companies like Spotify use to attract and retain users through their algorithms and other tools such as the Meta pixel that allows Spotify to report back to Facebook on Spotify user activity.
