Tech Giants Denied Prompt Appeal in Schools’ Addiction Suit (1)

Meta Platforms Inc., TikTok Inc., Snap Inc., and YouTube LLC aren’t entitled to an immediate appellate review of claims they violate public nuisance laws by addicting school-age children, a federal court said.

This multi-district litigation, “which currently benefits from coordination among plaintiffs from numerous states, would quickly splinter and fragment,” if the interlocutory appeal is granted, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Tuesday for the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dozens of state attorneys general as well as hundreds of individual plaintiffs are part of the MDL.

Rogers previously denied the platforms’ motion to dismiss, finding the districts could advance their legal theory that the platforms are a public nuisance. Schools suing nicotine vape pen maker Juul also successfully deployed that theory.

The defendants argued to Rogers that her opinion extended state public nuisance laws into an area where no state supreme court has ruled. They added that under Ninth Circuit precedent, federal district courts shouldn’t extend state laws until the state courts have ruled on the issue.

The defendants sought certification of three questions to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Rogers said. They asked: “1) whether the school districts’ public nuisance claims should be dismissed in their entirety because they (a) lack a nexus to defendants’ use of land and (b) concern problems arising from the distribution of products or services; (2) whether defendants owe the school districts a cognizable duty, specifically, whether the First Amendment bars imposition of a duty; and (3) whether the school districts’ claims to recover the costs of providing mental health care treatment to students are impermissibly derivative,” she said.

None of the high courts in the states involved in this suit have addressed whether “the proposed land or product-based limitation on public nuisance,” Rogers said. Certifying this case for immediate appeal would ask the Ninth Circuit to certify the public nuisance question to the state courts, which would shatter the multi-district litigation, it said.

The 15 state involved are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia, Rogers said.

In a separate lawsuit in June, the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, ruled against the plaintiffs on similar claims. It said that there must be limits on liability — otherwise any company could be held responsible when “emotional harm” it inflicts on individuals then causes those individuals to “act out.”

Social Media Victims Law Center, Seeger Weiss LLP, Andrus Anderson LLP, Motley Rice LLC, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, and Robert Howard Klonoff of Portland, Ore., represent parents in the action. The state attorneys’ general represent the states. Covington & Burling LLP, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP represent Meta. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP represent Snap. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, King & Spalding LLP, Williams & Connolly LLP, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP represent TikTok. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represent YouTube.

The case is In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 4:22-md-03047, 3/11/25.