The debate related to social media addiction and the impact it has on young individuals has been talked about for many years. But a recent ruling by a District Court judge in California is making it very clear how things will no longer go unnoticed.
The latest ruling in this regard is against top tech giants Snap, Alphabet, Meta, and ByteDance recently. Moreover, this particular decision came into effect after so many kids were believed to have suffered from emotional, physical, and mental turmoil, thanks to using excessive social media.
Common symptoms included the likes of depression, anxiety, and even self-death- it revealed.
Therefore, the recent litigation in question is not only seeking damages but is also holding the big tech names responsible for their wrongful practices as it’s about time.
Close to 140 different school districts in the country have also put out lawsuits like these against the tech giant. This includes close to 42 different states suing the tech giants for things related to addiction to social media platforms.
For now, none of the firms outlined are generating a response on the matter. But top lawyers feel this is a huge step in terms of a victory for loved ones who have members who are affected by this and are now forced to reap the consequences that come with the dangers of such apps.
The judge’s ruling lasted a whopping 52 pages and it also rejected how firms were given immunity from legal action under the First Amendment. They will also not attain any protection from the actions carried out by third parties.
The firms unitedly told the court how Section 230 was bound to give them protection from any kind of lawsuit that holds them accountable for material published on the apps. Hence, they feel the claims are subjected to dismissal.
However, the claims generated by plaintiffs were much broader than simply focusing on the likes of third parties and their respective content. Moreover, the defendants failed to address why they cannot be held responsible for giving out ineffective behavioral controls to the parents of the victims.
An example was also put forward by the judge that related to how companies may have made use of age-verification tools to generate warnings about any kids being online.
Therefore, as per those protocols, they posed a huge theory to youngsters and the tech giants knew about this but failed to act accordingly.
Photo: DIW
Read next: YouTube Looks To Get Ahead Of The AI Wave By Implementing Labels On AI-Content
The latest ruling in this regard is against top tech giants Snap, Alphabet, Meta, and ByteDance recently. Moreover, this particular decision came into effect after so many kids were believed to have suffered from emotional, physical, and mental turmoil, thanks to using excessive social media.
Common symptoms included the likes of depression, anxiety, and even self-death- it revealed.
Therefore, the recent litigation in question is not only seeking damages but is also holding the big tech names responsible for their wrongful practices as it’s about time.
Close to 140 different school districts in the country have also put out lawsuits like these against the tech giant. This includes close to 42 different states suing the tech giants for things related to addiction to social media platforms.
For now, none of the firms outlined are generating a response on the matter. But top lawyers feel this is a huge step in terms of a victory for loved ones who have members who are affected by this and are now forced to reap the consequences that come with the dangers of such apps.
The judge’s ruling lasted a whopping 52 pages and it also rejected how firms were given immunity from legal action under the First Amendment. They will also not attain any protection from the actions carried out by third parties.
The firms unitedly told the court how Section 230 was bound to give them protection from any kind of lawsuit that holds them accountable for material published on the apps. Hence, they feel the claims are subjected to dismissal.
However, the claims generated by plaintiffs were much broader than simply focusing on the likes of third parties and their respective content. Moreover, the defendants failed to address why they cannot be held responsible for giving out ineffective behavioral controls to the parents of the victims.
An example was also put forward by the judge that related to how companies may have made use of age-verification tools to generate warnings about any kids being online.
Therefore, as per those protocols, they posed a huge theory to youngsters and the tech giants knew about this but failed to act accordingly.
Read next: YouTube Looks To Get Ahead Of The AI Wave By Implementing Labels On AI-Content
