đ§”Google, Meta, Snap and YouTube moved to dismiss the complaint filed by school districts & local governments in 50-state adolescent addiction case.
They assert that the claims are barred by Section 230 and the negligence/nuisance claims are derivative and lack proximate cause.
The social media companies argue that school districts are attempting to expand tort law to impose near-limitless liability on social media companies and disguise claims that are barred by Section 230.
Such a broad expansion of tort law will lead to absurd outcomes and a litany of cases brought against companies that provide legal goods/services merely because the good/service can lead to some kind of harm.
1. They argue school districts' negligence and nuisance claims fail for several threshold reasons:
They are barred by Section 230:
âWhat matters is not the name of the cause of action,â but âwhether the cause of action inherently requires the court to treat the defendant as the âpublisher or speakerâ of content provided by another.â
In essence, plaintiffs have engaged in "creative pleadings" to mask what is plainly a speech issue protected by Section 230 and bars them from bringing claims from entities who want to "recoup the money" spent in response to protected publishing activity.
Many of the claims target "challenge videos" that depict reckless behavior but online services' right to publish third-party content rests at the core of Section 230 and can't be overcome with "sweeping public nuisance theories."
There is no shortage of precedent where courts have applied Section 230 and consistently barred claims that attempt to hold companies liable for third-party content.
Defendants argue that the schools are trying to repackage the same principles using public nuisance arguments.
2. School districts fail to state a claim for public nuisance b/c these claims are restricted to land use cases, not to address allegedly widespread social problems caused by the distribution of lawful services.
There is also no public right at play, nor "special injury".
"If the School Districtsâ theory were to prevail, public nuisance law 'would become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.'"
There is an abundance of precedent which holds that public nuisance claims must involve the use of land & many courts have also held firm in refusing to apply it to cases involving the dissemination of services or consumer goods b/c such an extension would open the floodgates.
If public nuisance laws can be applied to social media companies and online addiction, there is nothing to stop fast food companies from being liable for obesity and the list goes on.
In short, public nuisance law is not meant as an over-broad way to merely remedy a harm.
3. School districts have also not alleged interference with a public right, which must be established to bring forward a public nuisance claim.
Rather they conflate public right with the far broader category of public interest.
4. School districts' negligence claim fails as a matter of law b/c they have failed to establish that social media companies owe them any duty, as is required under tort law.
They are also barred from seeking recovery from purely economic losses under the economic loss doctrine
Imposing a duty would not only blow wide open any bounds within tort law, but also serve to violate public policy and chill expression.
To accept this broad interpretation of legal duty would, again, open the floodgates for litigation against manufacturers of legal products/services.
Courts have also rejected claims brought against organizations that publish distressing news and content based on the same theory that School Districts bring here.
Making social media companies answerable to third parties for content posted by users will infringement on their 1A rights and those of users.
Vidushi Dyall
@vidushi_law_1
@progresschamber Breaking down key developments in important tech cases you should be following. Tech policy, cybersecurity, competition. Fordham Law alum.