Spence v. Meta Platforms Inc.: Impact of Social Media on Children’s Mental Health
Introduction
It is essential to note that the case of Spence V. Meta Platforms Inc. case concerns the negative impact of social media on children. Accordingly, the case related to Alexis Spence’s harm was reviewed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff’s main goal was to hold Meta Platforms Inc. liable for the negative effects on the psychological health of children, including Alexis Spence (PacerMonitor, n.d). Thus, it is important to provide a brief overview of the case of Spence V. Meta Platforms Inc. case, identify the laws violated, discuss the potential legal issues involved, and evaluate the court’s decision.
Case Overview
Alexis Spence started actively using Instagram at the age of eleven without any age restrictions. Although her parents became aware of this and installed a parental control program, it had negative consequences for Alex’s health. She developed an addiction to social networks, so she was constantly looking at Instagram posts and hardly slept (Unger, 2022). In addition, later, it developed into anorexia and self-harm due to the influence of certain harmful trends on Instagram.
Currently, the girl is 19 years old and is still trying to recover from the consequences of the detrimental influences of social media on her health. Recently, she read Facebook documents where she saw herself in a Facebook study on the impact of its programs on teenagers (Unger, 2022). As a result, Alexis Spence filed a lawsuit claiming that Meta not only damaged Alexis’ psychological health but that the company’s management knew about it. Thus, the case gained popularity, and people in eight other states filed similar lawsuits against Meta Platforms Inc.
Violation of the Laws
Accordingly, the family, on behalf of Alexis Spence, took the case to court. Meta Platforms became the defendant in the case because it is a corporation that includes Instagram. The plaintiff’s position is based on the fact that the company released a defective product and did not provide warnings to users about the dangers of using it (Black, 2019). Thus, it violates the rights of users and may cause them harm.
Moreover, another violation of the right is the collection of information about Alexis Spence for research. It is also worth noting that Instagram’s child protection policy also does not comply with the standards. This is because Alexis Spence, at the age of 11, was able to use the social network Instagram without restrictions (Black, 2019). Therefore, the company violates the laws on consumer protection and guarantees of confidentiality and disclosure of personal information.
Legal Issues
Moreover, the judges identified several legal issues that challenged the plaintiffs’ arguments. Accordingly, these legal issues primarily concerned the interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). However, lawsuits with similar claims have been dismissed under Section 230 (Unger, 2022). There are certain features of Spence’s claim that may lead to the plaintiff’s claims being satisfied. For instance, the information disclosed by Facebook demonstrates that Meta collected user data, and the management was aware of the harmful effects of using the social network (Unger, 2022).
Additionally, the legal fact that Alexis Spence underwent long-term treatment and doctors’ reports that social media harmed her mental health indicates a product defect. Accordingly, Instagram is addictive, and Meta’s management, having this information, did not intervene. Therefore, these facts are distinguishable from cases where Meta was immune from Section 230 due to the lack of direct participation in the harm. I think that in the case of Alexis Spence, section 230 was violated.
My Opinion
In my opinion, the court’s decision should uphold the plaintiff’s claims and award her damages. Moreover, I believe that given the evidence presented about the danger of Instagram to children’s mental health, the company should take steps to strengthen its age and content restriction policies. At the same time, it appears to me that the case of Spence V. Meta Platforms Inc. falls within the court’s application of Section 230 (Unger, 2022). Thus, by not granting immunity to the online platform, the court should recognize that their impact on the health of users is harmful.
Furthermore, Section 230 has played a crucial role in the development of the Internet and social media platforms (Black, 2019). Nevertheless, the defendant deliberately collected evidence of the worsening psycho-emotional state of users and then published it. Accordingly, I find that Facebook and Instagram had an active role in the deterioration of Alexis Spence’s health. Therefore, the court’s decision should satisfy the plaintiff’s claims in this case in full.
Conclusion
In summary, the case of Spence V. Meta Platforms Inc. is essential in terms of the liability of companies operating as social platforms with respect to the content of information disseminated on their servers. According to the circumstances of the case, Alexis Spence was a victim of Instagram’s failure to comply with privacy, age, and security policies. As a result, Alexis Spence suffered significant damage to her psychological health, which is still being felt today. Additionally, the company’s management collected data on the harms of social media and published it without consent, and they did not take steps to remedy the situation. Therefore, I believe that the court should satisfy the plaintiff’s claims and order Instagram to improve its security.
References
Black, J. P. (2019). Facebook and the future of fair housing online. Oklahoma Law Review, 72, 711-718. Web.
Unger, W. (2022). A new lawsuit says Instagram hurts teenagers by design. Slate Magazine. Web.
PacerMonitor. (n.d). Spence et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc. Web.