On Oct. 30, Clay Calvert of the conservative think tank AEI (American Enterprise Institute) reported, "Lawsuits, Minors, and Social Media Addiction: A Judge's Warning Shot to Platforms."

He is covering the lawsuit brought against social media giants regarding the protection of minors. "California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl on October 13 refused to dismiss two claims filed on behalf of minors in several consolidated cases targeting the owners of popular platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube."

The contested concept of social media addiction—it "is not currently a diagnosable condition"—is central to these cases. The plaintiffs assert that the platforms are engineered with addiction-creating design features that (1) prey on minors' "already-heightened need for social comparison and interpersonal feedback-seeking," and (2) exploit "their relatively underdeveloped prefrontal cortex" and brains' "chemical reward system" through algorithmically controlled "intermittent variable rewards" of dopamine. In turn, such addiction supposedly spawns a raft of harms—anorexia, bulimia, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide—with the platforms' designs encouraging minors to make "unhealthy, negative social comparisons" via features such as "appearance-altering filters." [ ]

As for the claims the judge allowed to proceed, one is for negligence against the platforms' owners (ByteDance, Google, Meta, and Snap Inc.). The other is for fraudulent concealment against Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram.

The decision is a wake-up call to the platforms' owners because the judge allowed the claims to proceed despite the platforms raising First Amendment free-speech concerns and the federal statutory safeguards platforms possess under Section 230 for content posted by others (third-party content). In short, the plaintiffs' attorneys successfully made—at least, at this early stage of litigation—end-runs around the platforms' traditionally formidable constitutional and statutory defenses against civil liability." [ ]