School District Public Nuisance Suits Continue to Pile Up vs. Social Media Firms

The roster of negligence and public nuisance lawsuits brought by U.S. school districts against social media platforms continues to spiral, with new cases filed this week in California, Florida, Indiana and Kentucky. Hendy Johnson added to the firm’s roster of nearly 20 public nuisance cases in federal courts in Kentucky and Indiana, some of which have been wrapped into Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (docket 4:22-md-3047) under U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Northern California, Oakland. The latest Hendy Johnson suit (docket 6:23-cv-00071), filed by Bell County Public Schools Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky in London, alleges Facebook, Instagram, Snap, TikTok and YouTube are contributing to a mental health crisis among American youth. The law firm filed a nearly identical suit Monday in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in Fort Wayne for plaintiff Fort Wayne Community Schools. The suits claim public nuisance and seek orders that defendants are jointly and severally liable and must end the described nuisance; equitable relief to fund prevention education and treatment for excessive and problematic use of social media; actual, compensatory and statutory damages; plus attorneys’ fees and legal costs. Frantz Law, which has filed about 20 lawsuits against social media companies on behalf of school districts in various states, filed (docket 3:23-cv-02015) its latest Tuesday for Florida’s Volusia County Schools, with over 62,000 students in 90 schools. In addition to public nuisance, it claims negligence and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Frantz Law filed a nearly identical suit Monday on behalf of Evergreen School District, Clark County, Washington, requesting an injunction for actions contributing to public nuisance; relief to fund prevention education and treatment; actual, compensatory and statutory damages; plus attorneys’ fees and legal costs. The lawsuits anticipate defendants will raise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a shield for their conduct, but the plaintiffs argue Section 230 is no shield for defendants' acts in designing, marketing and operating social media platforms that are harmful to youth.