Key Evidence Cited:

• • Leaked internal Meta studies finding Instagram made body image issues worse for 1 in 3 teen girls and 13.5% of U.K. teen girls reported increased suicidal thoughts after using Instagram.
  • MRIs revealing that compulsive use of defendants’ apps measurably alters adolescent brains’ neural sensitivity and rewards processing.
  • From 2009-2019, the rate of U.S. high schoolers persistently feeling sad or hopeless rose 40% alongside skyrocketing teen social media usage rates.
  • TikTok’s defective age controls allowed bots posing as minors to rapidly access a stream of videos about sex, drugs and eating disorders.
  • Meta’s internal messaging touting Instagram as a “pipeline” to attract and retain young teen users despite knowing the risks to their wellbeing.

The Argument:

• • The plaintiff contends the evidence shows the defendants knew their products could harm young users but prioritized profit over implementing crucial safety measures.
  • By designing platforms to capitalize on teens’ brain chemistry and maximize time spent on the apps, the defendants directly facilitated a rise in problematic use.
  • The school district argues the resulting mental health crisis has drained public resources, disrupted the learning environment and forced schools to divert attention to address students’ worsening wellbeing.
  • The school board alleges the companies’ conduct went beyond organizing user-generated content to intentionally creating addictive products without adequate precautions.
  • Essentially, the defendants recklessly pursued growth at all costs while misrepresenting the dangers, so they should be held accountable for the public nuisance created.

Key Counterarguments to Expect:

• • Section 230 immunity: Defendants will likely argue they are shielded from liability for third-party content on their platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
  • Lack of proximate causation: Companies may contend there are too many environmental, genetic and familial factors impacting teen mental health to isolate social media as the definitive cause.
  • Assumption of risk: Defendants could assert teens assume the risk of any negative impacts when they voluntarily choose to use the platforms.
  • Free speech rights: Social media giants may frame content moderation demands as impinging on their First Amendment rights to display user-generated content.
  • Existing safety measures: Expect the companies to highlight existing youth protection features in their apps and characterize demands for more as unnecessary and burdensome.

Elements of Public Nuisance Claim:

• • Condition: Defendants created a condition in their products injurious to youth health, safety and welfare.
  • Public Right: Defective platforms affect entire communities of young people, not just individuals.
  • Control: Companies control the design, release and operation of their own products and algorithms.
  • Proximate Cause: Excessive social media use directly caused by defendants’ choices has fueled youth mental health crisis.
  • Unique Damage: As primary youth mental healthcare provider, school district has incurred outsized costs and burdens to address fallout.

Elements of Negligent Design & Failure to Warn Claims:

• • Duty: As operators of platforms widely used by youth, defendants owed a duty of care to make products reasonably safe and warn of risks.
  • Breach: Companies breached this duty by not implementing safeguards to prevent excessive use and addiction among minors despite known hazards.
  • Cause: But for lack of safety features and warnings, young users would not have experienced such high rates of problematic use and resulting harms.
  • Foreseeable Harm: It was reasonably foreseeable that exploitative design and lack of precautions would lead to overuse and mental health issues in teens.
  • Damages: School district has diverted extensive resources to address student wellbeing fallout, e.g. more counselors, disciplinary action, interrupted learning, etc.

Special Considerations:

• • Products vs. Platforms: Presenting social media apps as defectively designed “products” vs. “platforms” for user content aims to limit Section 230 protections.
  • Research as Notice: Studies on social media’s youth mental health impact put defendants on notice of risks their design choices could cause to young users.
  • Ultrahazardous Activity: Complaint stops short of alleging teen-targeted social media is an “ultrahazardous activity” (like toxic chemicals) warranting strict liability.
  • Attractive Nuisance: Framing addictive platforms as an “attractive nuisance” luring in vulnerable kids could shape duty of care owed to minors.
  • Joint & Several Liability: Arguing defendants acted in concert and plaintiff isn’t at fault aims to tag companies with total damages, not partial fault.

Meta’s Problematic Practices:

• • Meta designed its algorithms to promote posts likely to elicit intense reactions, often pushing users into a vicious cycle of negative content.
  • Instagram’s feed, “explorer” page and emphasis on influencers promote impossible beauty standards and appearance-focused social comparison.
  • Snapchat’s “snap streaks” and “best friends” features quantify teens’ social worth and instill anxiety about maintaining connections.
  • Facebook’s and Instagram’s deficient age controls allow kids under 13 to readily create accounts and instantly access mature content.
  • Disappearing messages and “stories” on both apps raise risks of teen sexting and predation by creating a false sense of impermanence.

TikTok’s Manipulative Methods:

• • TikTok’s algorithm relentlessly learns individual users’ interests, raising risks of “rabbit hole” exposure to dangerous or explicit content.
  • Short video format and endless scroll design keeps vulnerable young brains locked in a constant dopamine-driven feedback loop.
  • Viral dance, prank and challenge trends frequently encourage risky behavior in pursuit of views, likes and social validation.
  • “For You” page recommendations rely on watch time as key engagement metric, yet offer no in-app way to set reasonable time limits.
  • Beauty filters create unrealistic expectations and dysmorphia while normalizing plastic surgery-type facial alterations.

YouTube’s Addictive Aspects:

• • Autoplay: Default autoplay setting on home and “Up Next” features creates a never-ending stream of sticky content without requiring user action.
  • Recommendations: Suggested videos can quickly lead young users down concerning content pathways, e.g. searches on dieting lead to pro-anorexia videos.
  • Incognito Mode: Easy anonymous viewing without logging in reduces barriers to underage use and accessing inappropriate videos.
  • Comment Rabbit Holes: Comments on innocuous kid videos can lead to predatory interactions luring children to more sexual content.
  • Ad Incentives: Allowing minors to profit off potentially harmful content via Partner Program monetizes risky teen behavior.

Key Relief Sought:

• • Damages: Monetary compensation for costs the school district has incurred addressing student mental health and disciplinary issues tied to defendants’ apps.
  • Abatement Order: Court order forcing defendants to cease operating platforms in a way that creates a public nuisance to youth well-being and school functioning.
  • Injunction: Order barring companies from continuing to engage in youth-targeted design practices court deems unlawful and requiring curative measures.
  • Medical Monitoring: Potential fund to allow ongoing screening and treatment for youth who have suffered mental health impacts from defendants’ products.
  • Prevention Education: Programs to educate students, staff and families about identifying problematic social media use and fostering healthier digital habits.

Challenges to Overcome:

• • Section 230 Defense: Defendants will argue they are mere “platforms” not liable for user-generated content. Plaintiffs must show design choices go beyond traditional publishing.
  • Causation Hurdles: Establishing clear causal link between platform use and specific mental health harms amidst myriad contributing factors will require strong data.
  • Jury Challenges: Conveying complex technical concepts and alarming youth impact evidence to jurors in accessible, emotionally resonant way.
  • Defining Fixes: Court may be reluctant to dictate specific product changes, so plaintiff must present viable reform framework.
  • Scope of Liability: Case could open floodgates for other districts to sue, so court will carefully consider limiting principles on platform duties.

Potential Ripple Effects:

• • More Plaintiff Suits: If Granville County prevails, expect a surge in similar school board cases and expansion to suits by parents, youth users directly.
  • Legislative Push: Findings could boost prospects for proposed laws like Kids Internet Design & Safety Act limiting addictive design elements.
  • FTC Action: Evidence uncovered may arm Federal Trade Commission to investigate deceptive youth marketing or privacy violations.
  • Global Impact: As with GDPR, any mandated US safety reforms would likely force platforms to change policies worldwide.
  • Cultural Shift: Increased awareness of manipulative design could accelerate “techlash” and spur families to delay/limit youth social media use.

Questions: Claims & Legal Theories

• • 1. What is the key public nuisance claim in the Granville lawsuit?
    • A) Platforms violate CDA Section 230 by hosting third-party content
    • B) Companies’ addictive app design fuels youth mental health crisis
    • C) Social media causes societal productivity losses from excessive use
    • D) Defendants engaged in false advertising about products’ safety
  • 2. What product liability theory does the complaint heavily rely on?
    • A) Negligent design of platforms failing to protect young users
    • B) Strict liability for algorithm-amplified harmful content
    • C) Breach of implied warranty of merchantability for dangerous apps
    • D) Violation of state consumer protection laws against unfair practices
  • 3. What gross negligence argument does the complaint advance?
    • A) Platforms have a special duty of care as publicly traded companies
    • B) Companies recklessly ignored risks to youth to boost engagement
    • C) Defendants failed to comply with FTC children’s privacy rules
    • D) Apps illegally collected data on users under 13 without consent
  • 4. Why does the suit emphasize platform features as key drivers of harm?
    • A) To present apps as dangerous “products” not passive “publishers”
    • B) To implicate execs’ personal liability for corporate policy decisions
    • C) To narrow claims to UI decisions immune from Section 230 defense
    • D) To suggest platforms directly produce harmful content themselves
  • 5. What’s a key challenge the plaintiff must overcome on causation?
    • A) Ruling out other genetic or environmental mental illness causes
    • B) Definitively proving increased social media use preceded crisis
    • C) Showing offline school behavior stemmed from online activity
    • D) All of the above could complicate proving causation

Answers: Alleged Harms & Supporting Research

• • 1. B) The core public nuisance claim asserts platforms’ addictive design fuels a youth mental health crisis that interferes with school operations.
  • 2. A) Negligent design features prominently, arguing companies failed to implement reasonable safeguards despite foreseeable risks to minors.
  • 3. B) Complaint alleges gross negligence by defendants in recklessly prioritizing user engagement over known dangers to youth wellbeing.
  • 4. A) Framing defective platform features as key drivers of harm aims to present apps as “products” to avoid Section 230 immunity for publishers.
  • 5. D) Plaintiff must overcome defense arguments that many confounding factors beyond social media, from genetics to offline stressors, contribute to youth mental health woes.

Questions: Alleged Harms & Supporting Research

• • 1. What key youth mental health stats does the complaint cite?
    • A) Doubling of teen girls with suicide plans from 2009-2019
    • B) Over 40% rise in students reporting persistent sadness 2010-2020
    • C) 1 in 5 teen girls seriously considered suicide attempts by 2019
    • D) All of these alarming trends are highlighted in the complaint
  • 2. What types of problematic content does the lawsuit allege platforms push?
    • A) Posts idealizing thinness and promoting eating disorders
    • B) Violent videos of fights, stunts and self-harm acts
    • C) Sexualized images and pornographic material
    • D) The complaint cites examples of all these and more
  • 3. What age group does the complaint say is most vulnerable to social media harms?
    • A) Preteens whose under-developed brains are prone to peer pressure
    • B) Adolescents in key stage of forming personal identity and values
    • C) Young adults transitioning to independent decision-making
    • D) The so-called “Zillennials” born after the year 2000
  • 4. What internal company research is most damning to Instagram?
    • A) Surveys showing most users want to spend less time on app
    • B) Findings that use makes body image issues worse for 1 in 3 teen girls
    • C) Data showing marked decline in posting frequency by young users
    • D) Insights on most popular face filters creating unattainable looks
  • 5. What evidence suggests defendants knew their products could be addictive?
    • A) Public statements by execs analogizing features to slot machines
    • B) Emergence of “social media addiction” as coined research term
    • C) Insider engineer concerns over “attention extraction” techniques
    • D) The complaint points to all these red flags and more

Answers: Alleged Harms & Supporting Research

• • 1. D) The complaint paints an alarming picture of youth mental health deterioration in the 2010s coinciding with surging social media use.
  • 2. D) From extreme dieting to graphic violence to underage sexualization, the lawsuit argues platforms perpetuate a spectrum of harmful content.
  • 3. B) The complaint emphasizes adolescents’ unique developmental vulnerabilities to social reward-seeking and external validation needs.
  • 4. B) Meta’s own researchers concluded Instagram worsens body image for a significant subset of teen girls, contradicting public safety assurances.
  • 5. D) From insider warnings to addiction research to damning exec soundbites, the complaint argues defendants had ample notice of abuse risks.