California’s social media bill, AB 2408, passed the Assembly by a unanimous vote of 45-0, which could lead consumers and taxpayers to believe this legislation is uncontroversial or even benign. However, AB 2408 is anything but, and California State Senators should not rubber stamp this deeply flawed legislation.
AB 2408, the Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act, essentially allows parents to sue social media platforms for “addicting” children to their services, with damages up to $25,000 per violation. If a social media platform “developed, designed, implemented, or maintained” features that were known, or “should have been known,” to be addictive to child users, it could face a fine up to $250,000 per violation. This legislation would throw the door wide open for frivolous lawsuits from parents and guardians and allow them to sue online platforms for an array of perceived harms.
Proponents of AB 2408 claim this bill holds social media platforms accountable, but what would a platform be accountable for? The answer is basically everything. Essentially, parents could sue social media companies for a child’s depression, eating disorder, mental distress, and anything falling into the vague criteria of contributing to “physical, mental, emotional, developmental, or material harms.” We can all agree there are heart wrenching issues that many children and young people are struggling with. However, it’s unclear how or why these issues that predate social media are now the fault of a few large social media platforms. AB 2408 is more likely to lead to windfall for lawyers than to actually address the legitimate issues lawmakers intended to fix.
One important consideration that surfaces whenever the government attempts to regulate speech and content is the First Amendment. In an op-ed in the Desert Sun, Adam Sieff explains how AB 2408 likely violates the First Amendment and would be unconstitutional. Specifically, he states that, “permitting California to punish social media platforms’ editorial decisions, as the measure proposes, would equally permit governments to punish newspapers and magazines, as well as authors of ‘choose-your-own-adventure’ stories, video games and, arguably, any kind of literature if a plaintiff could establish injuries suffered from those authors’ editorial choices.”
The vulnerability of children and the instincts parents have to protect them can lead to knee-jerk reactions. There were concerns about gory comic books in the 1950s and sex-laced Rock and Roll music in the 80s. Not to mention parents' apprehension about board games like Dungeons and Dragons or later with children watching too much television. Many of these panics over what children are doing appear overblown in retrospect, or at least did not require the government instituting such broad and heavy-handed measures like those included AB 2408.
Lawmakers should also consider the harmful effects of how this bill would be implemented. Unlike the past moral panics, the internet and social media have a greater potential to connect people together, and this can be especially important for young people. Billy Easley, formerly of Americans for Prosperity, has an excellent op-ed on how important social media was for him, stating of Facebook, “when I was closeted, it was a lot easier to friend a random gay person from Saskatchewan with a pride flag in his background than to come out.” This can also be true of other topics that children may feel less comfortable discussing with their parents, like eating disorders or depression, and sweeping legislation like AB 2408 risks locking children out of positive, pro-recovery content or steering them away from safer platforms.
Of course, online platforms are not perfect, and even as they develop children-centered online environments with enhanced safety features or improve parental controls, there is still reason for parents to exercise their best judgment when it comes to how and what their kids engage with online. However, it is, and should remain, primarily the parents’ responsibility. Opening up social media platforms to civil liability, as this bill would do, attempts to shift this responsibility away from parents and to the government and the courts.
Parents and lawmakers can have valid concerns about addiction to social media, but this legislation is not the answer to those concerns. The ultimate responsibility for limiting social media usage lies with parents to ensure that their children are acting responsibly online and to make decisions about what social media or devices their children should have access to. While it may be appealing, even popular right now, to blame social media companies for issues young people face today, this feel-good bill for parents won’t address any of the problems laid out in this legislation. Hopefully, California State Senators reject this flawed legislation and look for actual solutions.