Social Media Youth Addiction Lawsuit Judge Is Skeptical Referee

Hundreds of lawsuits alleging that TikTok, Instagram and other Big Tech social media platforms have sparked a child mental health emergency are in the hands of a path-breaking California federal judge with little appetite for courtroom stunts.

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the first Latina to serve on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, is presiding over the consolidated cases in her Oakland courtroom. She will soon rule on whether the lawsuits, which claim social media addiction causes anxiety and depression among adolescents, can overcome the tech companies’ longtime legal liability shield.

Rogers is a veteran of major tech cases, having run video game-maker Epic Games Inc.'s antitrust trial against Apple Inc. over allegations the tech company unlawfully monopolized its app store. The social media addiction cases are still in an early stage, but Rogers has already shown flashes of impatience with attorneys from the bench.

“My sense is that she is very smart, quite careful, and doesn’t put up with crap from anyone,” said Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, who followed the three week Epic-Apple trial. “She will dig into the issues carefully, as she has done in the antitrust cases.”

Rogers, who declined to be interviewed, has acknowledged a reputation for running a tight court. During a hearing last year in the consolidated lawsuits, Rogers said she wouldn’t hesitate to sanction attorneys for conduct such as instructing witnesses to not answer questions without a justification.

“If you don’t know me, I would suggest that you not test me because I’ll do it,” Rogers told dozens of attorneys during that hearing. “I haven’t sanctioned in a long time, but I will if I have to.”

Assessing Harms

The Barack Obama appointee is now also overseeing a new, sweeping lawsuit by dozens of state attorneys general alleging Meta Platforms Inc.‘s Instagram and Facebook use addictive algorithms and violate child privacy laws. That lawsuit could be folded into the youth addiction case.

A recent hearing on the platforms’ bid to toss the consolidated addiction lawsuits stretched nearly five hours. Rogers repeatedly interrupted attorneys to admonish them for making arguments they’d already included in written briefs. She also scolded attorneys for not coming back from a break on time.

“Clearly, none of you have been in a trial with me,” Rogers joked.

At times, the judge made not-so-subtle hints at her views towards certain arguments. Under questioning, Geoffrey Drake of King & Spalding LLP, an attorney for TikTok, told Rogers that platforms don’t have a legal duty to construct safe products under existing case law.

“You don’t have a duty to design a platform in a safe way? That’s what you want to argue?” Rogers said. “Let me write that down.”

Diversity Champion

Rogers, 58, was raised in Texas and attended Princeton University, returning to receive a law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1991. She worked as a litigator at Cooley LLP in San Francisco for more than a decade, where she focused on corporate and real estate disputes.

As the firm’s first Latina equity partner, Rogers has spoken frequently about her commitment to diversity in the male-dominated field of corporate law. She held leadership positions in the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association in the 1990s, and has been involved with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

Then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) tapped Rogers to serve on the Alameda County Superior Court in 2008. Obama nominated her three years later to the Northern District of California bench.

At the end of the Epic-Apple trial, she applauded both parties for putting forward a diverse set of trial attorneys that included women as lead litigators.

“This is very different than what I’ve seen in the past, and I think it’s a terrific example for the future,” Rogers said.

Professional Conduct

Rogers said on an American Bar Association podcast in March that her stern courtroom demeanor comes in part from her experience as a litigator. Courtroom rules matter because they allow all parties to get to the substance of a case, she said.

“I don’t have much tolerance for the gamesmanship, but I think that helps people,” Rogers said. “In the grander scheme, the ability to keep the real issues at the forefront is one of the most important things that a judge can do.”

At a jury trial last summer for a patent infringement case, Rogers scolded attorneys at Perkins Coie LLP for attempting to recruit one of her law clerks during the trial. She ordered the attorney to cease contact and send an email to all litigators at the firm explaining that the conduct was wrong and shouldn’t happen again.

“It is so inappropriate,” she told the attorneys. “It’s shocking to me that I actually have to say anything about this.”

Complex Cases

Jeremy Fogel, a retired judge who served with Rogers in the Northern District of California, said all judges in that court must learn to deal with complicated and technical cases involving the tech industry. Some judges find that task challenging, while others enjoy learning about the technology at issue, he said.

“She is an intellectually curious person,” Fogel said. “She wants to be sure the rulings she’s making make sense not only legally but actually reflect a correct understanding of what’s going on technologically.”

In the social media addiction case, Rogers will have to evaluate a novel legal theory forwarded by the plaintiffs, who contend social media platforms are akin to products and contain defectively designed algorithms that cause mental health harms.

Plaintiffs are making the product liability argument in a bid to skirt Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a legal shield for online platforms that blocks lawsuits over user-created content.

At the recent hearing, Rogers panned both sides for taking an all-or-nothing approach to the companies’ legal defenses. “My view is that this is much more complicated than either of you have briefed us,” she said.

In the Epic-Apple trial, Rogers corralled a sprawling case containing thousands of pages of evidence and economic data into a 185-page ruling.

She found that while Apple didn’t monopolize its app store, the company did violate California’s unfair competition law. A federal appeals court largely upheld Rogers’ decision, and both Epic Games and Apple have appealed to the Supreme Court.

During that trial, Rogers said on the American Bar Association podcast, she would decompress by watching 30 minutes worth of Marvel movies each night.

“I decided I was going to watch the Marvel movies from the beginning to the very end,” Rogers said. “That way I never had to decide at home what I was going to watch.”