From Nasdaq:

Social media platforms are facing mounting legal challenges, as a Los Angeles state court refused to dismiss a case accusing platforms of causing mental and physical health problems in children and teens. A federal judge similarly ruled social media platforms couldn’t use the Communications Decency Act to squash lawsuits, with calls to clarify Section 230 protection.

Snapchat lost a ruling in which a judge concluded that the platform is not protected from claims that it exposed underage users to drug traffickers. Snap insists the allegations are legally and factually flawed but remains committed to its efforts in combating illegal activity on its platform.

Plaintiffs argue that social media platforms are liable for their own allegedly defective designs, asserting that Section 230 immunity doesn’t protect them from negligence claims based on user-created content. A federal appeals court’s ruling in a prior case is cited when social media platforms argue Statements that their claims are barred by Section 230.

Snapchat argued that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs’ children was due to dealers’ posts and not the platform itself, despite the product liability claims. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that their case was different, highlighting Snap’s design features that left underage users vulnerable to adult predators.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff ruled that Snap must face claims by the parents of 11 children who allegedly used Snapchat to obtain fentanyl. Snap’s features were seen by the judge as crossing the line into content.

Plaintiffs suing social media platforms are getting better at emphasizing allegedly defective design features, as one of the lead lawyers indicated. Undeterred, plaintiffs still anticipate defense requests to appeal dismissal decisions, as the recent wins show that Section 230 is not impregnable.

Plaintiffs have been successful for now, showing that platforms are not immune to liability. The U.S. Supreme Court is anticipated to re-enter the debate over the scope of Section 230 immunity, leaving the plaintiffs waiting to see potential appellate developments.



Read more: Column: Internet immunity shield gets another dent in fentanyl victims’ case against Snap