Partner Carol C. Villegas and Associate Garrity Kuester are the authors of the insightful article “Social Media Warning Laws Boost Consumer Rights, Protection” published by Bloomberg Law.  In this article, Carol and Garrity explore how recently enacted social media warning-label laws are increasing consumer protection opportunities and supporting a changing litigation landscape. 

While cigarette packages and alcohol bottles have prominently listed warnings on the harmful effects of those products in writing and graphics, social media addiction has only recently garnered significant attention as a health concern requiring similar warnings.  Carol and Garrity detail how, after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for nationwide social media warning labels in response to its potential harms, some states have responded by requiring social media companies to issue warnings on their products.  While these state warning-label laws don’t afford consumers private rights of action, the authors show that “opportunities for consumers to seek protection and recovery through class action litigation are rapidly evolving given the addiction-type risks that social media poses.”

Providing an overview into the social media warning-label laws enacted in several key states such as New York, California, and Minnesota, as well as additional efforts in states like Texas, Carol and Garrity note that, while these statutes may vary in coverage and requirements, they signal a pivotal step toward “holding social media companies accountable” and strengthening the regulatory framework governing platform design and disclosure practices.  Representing an important shift in accountability, the authors emphasize that these statues shift the onus onto social media companies rather than individual users, “reflecting growing recognition that platforms deploy inherently addictive design features.”  These addictive features, which disproportionately affect children and young adults, have been shown in internal documents and whistleblower disclosures to be intentional, and while social media companies “understood the psychological risks their features posed,” they instead “prioritized engagement metrics over user well-being.”

Even though state statutes don’t provide for private rights of action, Carol and Garrity note that consumers may rely on these laws to seek remedies under state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes to pursue claims against social media companies.  The authors point to private actions being litigated such as In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, which consolidates thousands of lawsuits alleging that platforms are designed to addict young users.  They further note that recent court decisions highlight “a growing judicial consensus that platform design features are distinct from user-generated content,” and maintain that this litigation “provides important context for warning-label laws, which codify legislative findings that engagement-maximizing features can be deceptive and harmful, broadening consumer rights and protections.”

Carol and Garrity conclude that the growing number of warning-label requirements mandating that social media companies formally identify their platforms’ potentially harmful features “are shaping public policy, guiding regulatory action, and informing judicial interpretation—all of which serve to increase consumer protection online” and that, as warning-label requirements spread to other states, “consumers will have more opportunities to protect themselves and their children, and to pursue relief for harms caused by social media features.”