The agreement reached last week between Meta and 52 U.S. attorneys general, under which the states will withdraw their lawsuit accusing the company of designing addictive products for children, extinguishes only one of the fires burning at Meta headquarters. Others continue to rage, and recent developments may even have intensified them.
One such case is the class-action lawsuit brought by thousands of families against Meta, ByteDance (owner of TikTok), Snap (Snapchat’s parent company) and Alphabet (owner of YouTube). The plaintiffs accuse the tech giants of seriously harming the mental health of young Americans. The lawyers leading the case told EL PAÍS that, while they view the settlement with “cautious optimism,” they intend to pursue their own claims to the end.
On Wednesday, Meta agreed to pay nearly $18 billion over the coming years and to implement a series of changes to its platforms. Among the most significant measures are a two-hour daily limit on minors’ use of social media, a ban on notifications during school hours, and a nighttime mode that prevents children from accessing Instagram or Facebook overnight. Like counts will also be hidden from minors, and age-verification systems will be strengthened to identify underage users more accurately.
“The agreement [between Meta and the attorneys general] resolves the claims brought by state governments, but it does not resolve, release or compensate a single one of the thousands of individual claims filed by the families included in our proceedings. Nor does it resolve claims by school districts, city governments or other public entities,” Joseph VanZandt from the Beasley Allen law firm told EL PAÍS.
Together with Mariana Aroditis and Rachel Lanier of Lanier Law Firm and Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi, VanZandt is coordinating the families’ large class-action lawsuit against the social media companies. Parents of children harmed by social media platforms began joining forces in 2022 under the guidance of this legal team. The ranks of the plaintiffs swelled as the case passed a series of milestones: the courts agreed to hear the suit, rejected attempts by the companies to have it dismissed, and handed the plaintiffs a string of early victories this year.
The lawsuit now represents thousands of claimants. Under U.S. law, any individual who believes, and can demonstrate, that they suffered the harms alleged in the litigation can seek to join the class action.
Among the plaintiffs is Kaley G. M., a 20-year-old woman who was awarded $6 million in damages after a jury found in March that Meta and YouTube were responsible for her becoming addicted to their platforms while she was still a minor. The ruling was historic, marking the first time a U.S. court formally concluded that social media platforms can cause addiction.
Kaley began watching videos on YouTube at the age of six. By nine, after receiving her first smartphone, she was using Instagram. At 10, she joined TikTok, then known as Musical.ly. By 11, she was on Snapchat as well. According to testimony presented at trial, she spent up to 16 hours a day on the apps. Her mother described the panic attacks Kaley suffered whenever attempts were made to restrict her phone use. She later experienced depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia.
The court ordered Meta and YouTube to pay her $6 million in compensation for emotional distress and other damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the amount and YouTube for the remaining 30%. The total financial liability, and even the number of companies ultimately found responsible, could rise if the next phase of the process finds additional wrongdoing.
Six million dollars, assuming the award is not increased, may seem manageable for companies the size of Meta and Alphabet. But if similar compensation were extended to the potential number of victims across the United States, which could run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands, the financial consequences would be staggering even for Big Tech.
Kaley’s case is only one among countless others being handled by this legal team. Their clients are seeking accountability for “specific, individual harms, including depression, self-harm, eating disorders and death,” VanZandt says. According to the class-action complaint, these harms were a foreseeable consequence of decisions made by the platforms to maximize user engagement and make their products addictive. “Nothing in this agreement changes that, and nothing in that agreement speaks for our clients,” says VanZandt.
“We congratulate the attorneys general for securing binding commitments from Meta, such as default night-time restrictions for teens, daily time limits, stricter age-verification rules for users, parental controls and independent audits,” says VanZandt. “If faithfully implemented, these reforms are a step in the right direction for children’s safety online, and we urge other social networks to adopt protections at least as stringent.”
But given Meta’s track record, VanZandt and his colleagues are taking a wait-and-see approach, preferring to judge the measures by how they are ultimately implemented. “We are cautiously optimistic,” he says. “These changes come after years of litigation and as a result of pressure from the courts. There is a difference between commitments made on paper and real change. We’ll be watching very closely to see whether Meta follows through on its promises.”
VanZandt and his team have spent months preparing for the trials against Meta and the other platforms, which are scheduled to begin in October. “We’re on the right track. Our campaign to ensure justice for all the families involved in this process continues,” he says.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
