Is social media harmful for kids? TikTok settles suit ahead of trial

TikTok settled the first of a series of closely watched product liability lawsuits on Monday, bowing out on the eve of a landmark case that could upend the way social media giants engage with their youngest users and leave the tech giants on the hook for billions of dollars in damages.

The settlement was reached when jury selection was scheduled to begin Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court and comes a week after Snap reached a settlement with the same plaintiff, a Chico, Calif., woman who said she became addicted to social media starting in grade school.

“This deal should come as no surprise because this damning evidence is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Sacha Haworth, managing director of industry watchdog Tech Oversight Project. “This was just the first case; there are hundreds of parents and school districts in social media addiction lawsuits starting today, and unfortunately every day new families are speaking out and taking Big Tech to court for their intentionally harmful products.”

TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The parties are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter amicably,” Snap spokeswoman Monique Bellamy said about the agreement.

The remaining defendants, Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube, still face allegations that their products are “defective” and designed to addict children to products that their manufacturers knew were harmful.

The same arguments are at the center of at least 2,500 lawsuits now pending together in state and federal courts. The Los Angeles case is one of a handful of pioneers aimed at clarifying uncharted legal territory.

Social media companies are protected by the 1st Amendment and Section 230, a decades-old law that protects internet companies from liability for what users create and share on their platforms.

Lawyers for the Chico plaintiff, referred to as FGM in court documents, say the apps were developed and developed to trap young people and keep them on the platforms without considering the dangers that companies know lurk there, such as sexual aggression, encouraging bullying and self-harm, and even suicide.

Jurors will be asked to consider whether these dangers were accidental or natural and whether social media companies can be held liable for harm that parents say was caused by their children’s posts.

The hearing comes at a time when public opinion about social media has soured, with parents, mental health professionals, lawmakers and even children increasingly concerned that the apps do more harm than good.

Phones are now banned in public school classrooms in California. Many private schools enforce strict rules about when and how social media can be used by the student body.

In studies, scores of younger users (including the youngest of the “Anxious Generation” Zoomers and the oldest of Alpha Gen’s iPad kids) say they now spend too much time on apps. A controversial but growing body of research suggests that some of them are addicted.

Nearly half of teens say social media is bad for people their age, interfering with their sleep and hurting their productivity, according to a survey last spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Nearly a quarter say it lowered their grades. And 1 in 5 people say it harms their mental health.

Experts say social media has led to an increase in suicides among teenage girls and a post-pandemic increase in eating disorders.

Supporters of the cause liken their quest to the fight against Big Tobacco and opioid maker Purdue.

“This is the beginning of the trial of our generation,” Haworth said.

But the platforms’ lawyers say the gap between public opinion and civil culpability is too wide. Social media addiction is not an official clinical diagnosis, and proving that it exists and that companies are taking responsibility for it will be an uphill battle.

YouTube lawyers attempted to further complicate the situation by arguing that video-sharing sites are not social media and cannot be lumped in with sites like Instagram and TikTok.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say such distinctions are temporary, noting that YouTube has by far the youngest group of users, many of whom say the platform is an on-ramp into the world of social media.

“I am equally shocked by the internal documentation I have seen regarding the decision by all four of these defendants to addict children to a platform knowing it would be bad for them,” said Matthew Bergman, an attorney with the Social Media Victims Law Center. “To me, their decision to put profits ahead of the safety of children is outrageous.”