"Although social media companies are in many ways villains that have not done nearly enough to protect children on their platforms, they nonetheless should not be held liable based on claims that they are creating addictive and harmful online environments. Last week, a trial began in Los Angeles Superior Court in a lawsuit brought by a woman, referred to in documents as Kaley G.M., against tech giants YouTube and Instagram. (TikTok previously settled with her)."
"The core of these lawsuits is that internet and social media companies, including those owned by Meta and Google, should be held liable on the same theory famously used against Big Tobacco: that brands knowingly created an addictive product. But the analogy fails for one simple reason. Internet and social media companies are engaged in speech, protected by the First Amendment, while no constitutional right is involved in regulating cigarettes and other tobacco products."
Thousands of lawsuits allege that social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive to children, with one plaintiff suing YouTube and Instagram and TikTok settling. The suits invoke a tobacco-style theory that companies knowingly created addictive products. The analogy fails because internet platforms engage in speech protected by the First Amendment, unlike tobacco regulation, and holding media companies liable for content raises serious constitutional issues. The lawsuits assert that algorithms tailor content to keep children engaged for hours, but similar engagement mechanisms exist across media — books, television, and video games — complicating liability claims.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]