Addicted to Love of Likes Button Shakedown?

Letter to Ephesians: Plaintiffs bar specializing in “novel” litigation can come close to being aka “shysters.” Latest example is its “Social Media Shakedown” in which it’s argued media platforms are liable for kid meltdowns. But is it time to put the onus where it belongs, on lax parents?

That, at least, is the opinion of the WSJ’s editorial board, which goes so far as to suggest it may be time for more than just a few states to pass legislation “requiring age verification & parental control for teens to use [social media’s] platforms.” Maybe Congress could do something similarly useful for a change? The companies swear they have stepped up their protections. But, if the plaintiffs bar is right, those companies are making huge profits & not going far enough in implementing those measures. The reality, the editors note, is that studies have shown “Social media’s association with adolescent well-being [is] complex & nonlinear, varying by age & sex.” Then, again, we’re reminded, much content on such platforms aren’t “harmful per se,” like photos of friends looking happy. Are the platforms to be held liable because a teen gets depressed over seeing others happier than him or herself? And what about other causes of teen duress?

Right now, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act gives immunity coverage to the platforms for “user-generated content.” A trial starting this week in LA seeks to erode & get around that free pass on liability. The suing lawyers insist a 19-yr-old plaintiff client got depressed & addicted to the point of “self-harm & body dysmorphia” by YouTube’s & Meta’s “negligently” designed features, like its public likes button. Talk about legalistic double talk and logic stood on its head. The plaintiff in this case was also shown to have been “exposed to domestic abuse in her home as a young child.” But co-defendants TikTok and Snap nevertheless settled just days ago for fear of a huge judgment. These hopelessly complicated & impossible to sort out “causes” involved, the editors concluded, are the very reason why “the case doesn’t belong in the courts.”

Davd Soul