Trial Magazine

A boy is overwhelmed by TikTok sending a relentless stream of suicide videos. A teenager is bombarded with violent videos and extorted with explicit photos, leading her to take her own life. A girl’s mind is seized by simulated hanging videos on Instagram. She hangs herself.

Thousands of children have been exposed to harmful content that can lead to depression, eating disorders, and self-harm. That path was in part paved by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which allows powerful social media companies and digital platforms to avoid responsibility for massive and systemic harm caused by dangerously designed social media products. How long will social media companies be allowed to profit from products that hurt and kill kids?

We learned more about how and why kids are hurt by social media companies in the fall of 2021. That’s when a whistleblower who worked at Facebook, and who studied the platform’s algorithm, revealed internal documents and testified before Congress that Facebook chose profits over safety standards.

The material the whistleblower released included results from a research project on teen mental health and how Instagram affects it. The research was completed by October 2019, when it was shared on an internal Facebook company site and later provided to The Wall Street Journal.

What has been happening to children and teens online has been building since the origin of chatrooms and social media. With the development of artificial intelligence tools and privacy concerns, momentum has grown to limit the ways in which Section 230 provides legal protection to social media and tech companies. AAJ supports legislation to repeal the blanket immunity of Section 230 and, along with members, is calling for the prioritization of people’s rights and safety over Big Tech’s corporate profits.

There is also work being done to protect kids by advocating for laws that would revive old cases by opening a look-back window on sexual assaults. And, as is the case with Big Tech, insurance companies are fighting legislative attempts to create a framework for accountability.

Tort “reform” proponents have testified or filed an amicus brief opposing laws that would provide an expansion of time-barred sexual assault claims in over a dozen states. Testimony against laws that would help sexual assault survivors is a red flag that insurers are trying to shield themselves from liability. And instead of fulfilling their legal obligation to cover these claims in states where new laws have been passed, insurance companies are challenging those laws and engaging in efforts to avoid compensating victims.

AAJ is closely watching child safety legislation federally, in the states, and in the courts, and we are taking action when necessary. When the constitutionality of the Maryland Child Victims Act was challenged, AAJ filed an amicus brief defending the law, and AAJ has filed amicus briefs on Section 230. (justice.org/amicusbriefs).

In this month’s Trial, read about other ways trial lawyers help the most vulnerable clients, with articles on trauma-informed interviews (p. 20); explaining complex birth injury science to jurors (p. 28); and holding day cares (p. 36) and child protection agencies accountable for abuse and neglect (p. 42).

We must continue to have eyes everywhere and work with our members and state trial lawyer association partners to ensure that laws restore rights and provide remedies when children are exploited.

Trial lawyers often say, “We are the voice for the voiceless.” This is especially true when we speak for the children who are no longer with us. We must continue to raise our voices to create change and prevent additional harm and tragedy.

Lori E. Andrus is a partner at Andrus Anderson in San Francisco and can be reached at lori.andrus@justice.org.