Earlier this year, a California mother won her lawsuit against Meta and YouTube, and she joined a handful of other cases that could change the way social media companies view child safety. The jury determined that the platforms were aware of the harm they caused young users and that they were addictive, and that they were continuing to deploy them without adequate protection measures. The ruling reverberated throughout Silicon Valley, and the company has gone all in in Washington to advocate for measures that could spare it from future challenges.
According to sources familiar with the discussions, Meta Platforms has been working diligently to lobby U.S. lawmakers for legal protection from child-harm claims related to social media platforms such as Instagram. The legislation, as it stands, and according to a Reuters review, would exempt online companies from lawsuits at the state level concerning the online safety of children, rendering moot the increased number of lawsuits brought by families and school districts for accountability. The step comes after Meta is already the subject of thousands of lawsuits by young people and their parents, who allege the company intentionally targeted its platforms at maximizing engagement while harming young people’s mental health.
This lobbying effort comes at a very strategic moment. Meta seems to be preparing to influence the legislation that will impact its business, as the Kids Online Safety Act has resurfaced in the Senate. KOSA passed the Senate with a huge 91-3 margin in 2024, but stalled in the House, and would force social media companies to make reasonable efforts to protect minors from certain harms, such a compulsive use of social media. But the bill has been reintroduced this year, and is now supported by both Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, which means it has a better chance of becoming law.
The interesting thing about Meta’s proposed immunity paragraph is that it’s quite broad. The language would not only resolve future lawsuits but it would also dissolve pending cases at the time the law goes into effect. How that will play out, said Julia Duncan, of the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, is “deeply concerning. “It’s pretty clear-cut immunity against any and all parent, any and all school district that is seeking to hold any AI company, any social media company, accountable for harm to children,” Duncan said. Her point of observation is the essence of the problem: families nationwide are going to court not for the money, but as a means of making companies pay attention to child safety.
On the other hand, the pressure has been building up, with Meta reportedly offering this immunity provision in return for rescinding its opposition to KOSA. The company has previously demanded federal guidelines that would necessitate app stores to confirm ages and outlaw the patchwork of state legislation on children’s online safety. It may be sound on the surface to have a uniform set of standards, but critics argue that the immunity clause would put families in a situation where they have no remedy even if there has been obvious negligence or injury.
The California case that ended up in court earlier this year between Meta and Google’s YouTube is a prime example of what’s at stake. The plaintiff’s attorneys said that the infinite scrolling, activity alerts and appearance-changing photo filters, among other features, were meant to “hook” young users into the mobile apps, though they had been the subject of internal studies that raised concerns about their potential to harm. The verdict has fueled other plaintiffs and led to the attention of lawmakers, and the companies intend to appeal the ruling. KOSA explicitly addresses these very features, and thus, companies must be careful to how they deploy them.
But the proposed immunity clause would effectively gut such a requirement of enforceability via private litigation. Without that ability to sue, what is the point of business for “putting children before user engagement”? That’s what consumer advocates and legal experts are now working on as the bill goes through the legislative process.
When questioned about the specific liability provision, a Senator Blackburn spokesman said they had not read the proposed wording and did not see how it would have any application. This answer implies that perhaps Meta is pushing the limits even within the conservative fold, trying to go as far as it can to get some protections but not lose any political support. The final form of the bill is not certain, however, since it’s now part of the broader discussions between Blackburn and the White House, which are attempting to bundle child online safety legislation with artificial intelligence provisions.
Worse, the public perception of these companies. Social media sites have claimed to be neutral public forums for connecting and expressing ideas for years, but evidence has accumulated that the business model is based on engaging and retaining their audiences, sometimes by means of psychological manipulation. When parents have experienced the damaging effects of social media in their children’s lives, with all the documented downsides, then they are hardly sympathetic to claims of innovation or free expression.
Meanwhile, opponents to overly aggressive litigation say that if platforms are held liable for the actions of their users, it could be a slippery slope that would inhibit innovation or may compel companies to adopt too stringent a content filter. It’s a valid question to ask who is more accountable, the tech company, parents or the young users themselves. Yet it seems that Meta is more interested in blanket immunity than collaborative solutions, a sign that the company is more concerned with protecting profits than solutions.
