US appeals court allows thousands of lawsuits against social media companies over user addiction claims to proceed

Aug 10 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday allowed thousands of lawsuits to move forward against Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok, and other social media companies over claims they designed their products to be addictive to young ‌users.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the companies' bid to reverse a lower court's ruling forcing them to ‌face some 2,400 lawsuits over the claims filed in federal court.

The companies, which also include Snap Inc's Snapchat, had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 - which ​shields them from lawsuits over content posted by their users - also shields them from allegations that they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.

But the court said the appeal was brought too early for it to weigh in, a problem the judges flagged during oral arguments in the case. Most appeals come after a trial in the case has concluded, so the judge's decision would be reviewed at that time, the judges said.

Filed by ‌states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege ⁠that social media companies intentionally addicted young users, contributing to surging depression, anxiety and body-image issues and a broader mental health crisis among American youth in recent years.

The plaintiffs - which include parents, school districts and states - had argued that ⁠the trial court's ruling was not final and therefore could not be appealed. But they also objected to the companies' arguments about the federal law, saying it does not cover claims related to how they operate and design their products.

The cases, which have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek ​damages, ​penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies appealed Rogers' orders in 2023 and ​2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward.

At arguments ‌in the case on January 6, the appeals court judges expressed skepticism that it was an appropriate time to weigh in on the case. But they also had questions about the companies' argument that they were shielded from the claims by federal law, with one judge noting that if Congress had intended for the law to provide a shield for the companies from broad liability it could have said so explicitly.