Blame It on the A-a-a-a-a-al-gorithm? Inapplicability of Design Defect Doctrine to Alleged Mental Health Harms of Social Media

Social media may be the most important invention of the twenty-first century; it is undoubtedly the most controversial. This Note explores the intersection of strict products liability law and social media, to opine on whether social media platform providers (providers) should be liable to their consumers for purported design defects within their platforms that allegedly contribute to negative mental, physical, and emotional health consequences for adolescent users. This requires determining the proper standard for how direct the harm that the defect causes must be for liability to attach. Because internet companies are currently rendered immune from claims related to third-party content on their platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), this Note scrutinizes claims that could survive summary judgment against a Section 230 immunity defense. It compares the ongoing multidistrict litigation in In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, in which a number of design defect claims survived summary judgment despite defendants’ Section 230 defenses, with litigation against e-cigarette companies, opioid companies, and slot machine manufacturers. This Note argues that product defect claims against social media platforms alleging general harm fall outside the contours of strict products liability doctrine and are better served to be addressed by legislatures. Products liability law is not designed to parse whether a product is optimal for every user, but to deter and punish purveyors of defective products. This Note does not address the potential reformation or replacement of Section 230 of the CDA and only briefly considers the First Amendment issues raised by proposed legislation. The Note outlines how the indirect and attenuated nature of the harms allegedly caused, along with the positive utilities of social media, should shift the onus to the legislature to define parameters for providers.