In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has dismissed 25 lawsuits accusing Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg of personally concealing the mental health risks associated with social media use, particularly among children. The federal judge determined that the plaintiffs failed to provide concrete evidence linking Zuckerberg directly to the alleged harm caused by Facebook and Instagram, stating that “control of corporate activity alone is insufficient” to establish personal liability.
The lawsuits, filed across 13 states, accuse Zuckerberg and his company of knowingly downplaying the serious mental health risks of excessive social media use, such as addiction, anxiety, and depression, which have disproportionately affected young users. The plaintiffs have argued that Zuckerberg was the “guiding spirit” behind these efforts to conceal the risks, despite internal warnings about the platforms’ potential harms.
However, Judge Rogers found the claims against Zuckerberg to be insufficiently specific, effectively shielding him from personal liability. While the judge ruled in Zuckerberg’s favor, the case will continue against Meta itself, as the broader allegations related to the company’s practices remain unresolved.
This ruling is part of a wider legal battle involving several hundred lawsuits filed by children, their families, and school districts against major tech companies like Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat. These cases seek to hold social media platforms accountable for their alleged role in promoting addictive behavior among young users.
The outcome is seen as a major step in the ongoing debate over the impact of social media on children’s well-being. State attorneys general across the U.S. are also pursuing similar legal actions, linking social media use to issues like mental health struggles, academic disruption, and sleep deprivation.
Previn Warren, a partner at Motley Rice representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that the legal team would continue gathering evidence to expose how “Big Tech has knowingly prioritized profits over the safety of our children.”
This case is part of the broader In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation and marks a key moment in the legal scrutiny facing social media giants.
Source: Swifteradio.com
