4 ms·

The lawsuit is going to be dismissed due to lack of standing.

DueDilligence 4y ago
.. it’s been a clearly focused project for over 4 years now. A colleague is on the board..A bevy of mental health experts are core to this - so due diligence. I don’t know the layout of the legal team, but was told they have put this thru the ringer - the goal has always been a legal precedent, then actual legislation, then adoption by other entities as well. The Portland School District has a parallel lawsuit as well on the tails of ours. .. I suggest this light reading: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48
- huitzitziltzin 4y ago
  Is there a specific law that these firms are supposed to have violated? (Does there need to be? I am not a lawyer.) Does the school district have standing to sue on behalf of the students? (Is the injury that they pay more for mental health services for students?) I’m genuinely curious. There’s a surface analogy to the cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors, but those are controlled substances whereas YouTube is clearly not. There isn’t even a clear causal effect of the from YouTube -> depression, IMO. Research on this has been quite low quality. And what about the role of the parents who are the owners of the phones on which their children run TikTok? Again genuine curiosity here, not trying to be a jerk.
  - DueDilligence 4y ago
    .. I appended above and addressed what you are asking.
    - huitzitziltzin 4y ago
      This seems like the most likely section, though I am not a lawyer: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.48.120 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.48.120 If so, one issue this might turn on is the establishment of a causal link between something these firms are doing and a negative health impact. That’s going to be extremely difficult to establish and is far, far from established. I’m not unsympathetic to this case but I am not that optimistic. Happy to hear a legal perspective though.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    The geek wire article mentions that they are referring to the public nuisance law.
    - westurner 4y ago
      Probably would have been more cost effective to have worked with Amazon in Seattle on the Kids launcher on the Fire OS fork of Android (the one that merges the App Store and Launcher for the kids). It's not safe to allow school administrators to jam and deny students' (possibly distracting) communications at least on their personal devices, eh? Perhaps students could voluntarily submit to an App Launcher for focusing on school that deprioritizes content streams that haven't been made educational while attending unpaid conpulsory education programs under threat of prosecution for truancy, not nuisance. Non- FireOS Android forks have the "Digital Wellbeing" tools for helping oneself focus despite persistent distractions that will always exist IRL.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    The school district isn't suing "on behalf" of students. The school district claim is that it has standing to sue on it's own behalf due to specific harms it has suffered as a direct result of these companies actions (e.g. increased mental healthcare costs.)
- danielfoster 4y ago
  Thank you for the link! The evidence of negative mental effects is definitely there. Labeling social media a public nuisance is an interesting strategy. I am skeptical that courts will be willing to make a leap to follow this reasoning, especially when social media is so pervasive outside the school setting. Kids used to read magazines during class and this was never considered a public nuisance. Neither was Pokémon. These are arguably less harmful, but parents can also use parental controls to restrict access during school hours if they wish to do so. It might be interesting to explore this through the lens of tobacco marketing in schools, though I’m sure this was already considered. How many parents are using parental controls? Do they work? (I’m not a parent and am genuinely curious).
- tw98521358 4y ago
  If they spent an equivalent amount of effort on figuring out how to manage the busses out offer classes to talented kids all the residents would be better off
shkkmo 4y ago
Similar (ish) lawsuits, (like the one against Juuls) haven't been dismissed. What makes you think this one is different?
LarryMullins 4y ago
TikTok offers their service to people they know to be teenagers, during school hours, when those teenagers are inside the school building (with TikTok's tracking of users, they surely know it.) I don't expect this lawsuit to succeed, but it's not entirely without merit and I do think the school district has some standing if for no other reason than because TikTok is serving videos to, and accepting uploads from, students who are actually in school.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Every school system sets its own vacation days, and home schooled kids don't share the same set hours or days as the local school districts. I don't doubt that the harms are real, but I do suspect that you are putting an unreasonable burden on tik tok here. What I'm actually most curious about is when did schools start letting kids have cell phones during the school day? I was in school roughly just before smart phones were a thing, but texting was starting to become popular if you could get a plan that didn't charge per text. The expectation was your phone stayed in your locker if you brought it to school, and anyone caught with one during class or in the hallways during class hours would have it taken away until the day was over.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > Every school system sets its own vacation days, You're missing the part where TikTok knows where their users are, and know when a thousand kids are clustered together inside of a known school building in the middle of the day in the middle of the week. It's not rocket science to figure out those kids are in school. They know it. > home schooled kids The inability to perfectly know when a kid might be "in school" doesn't make much difference in my eye. They could easily detect it most of the time, and probably do, but choose to serve those kids anyway.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      >They could easily detect it most of the time, and probably do, but choose to serve those kids anyway. Seems ridiculous to push this responsibility on companies and app engineers. It isn't society's job to child proof the world for distracted children. Parents and guardians have to take the reigns and deal with discipline issues directly.

.. it’s been a clearly focused project for over 4 years now. A colleague is on the board..A bevy of mental health experts are core to this - so due diligence. I don’t know the layout of the legal team, but was told they have put this thru the ringer - the goal has always been a legal precedent, then actual legislation, then adoption by other entities as well. The Portland School District has a parallel lawsuit as well on the tails of ours. .. I suggest this light reading: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48

huitzitziltzin 4y ago
Is there a specific law that these firms are supposed to have violated? (Does there need to be? I am not a lawyer.) Does the school district have standing to sue on behalf of the students? (Is the injury that they pay more for mental health services for students?) I’m genuinely curious. There’s a surface analogy to the cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors, but those are controlled substances whereas YouTube is clearly not. There isn’t even a clear causal effect of the from YouTube -> depression, IMO. Research on this has been quite low quality. And what about the role of the parents who are the owners of the phones on which their children run TikTok? Again genuine curiosity here, not trying to be a jerk.
- DueDilligence 4y ago
  .. I appended above and addressed what you are asking.
  - huitzitziltzin 4y ago
    This seems like the most likely section, though I am not a lawyer: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.48.120 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.48.120 If so, one issue this might turn on is the establishment of a causal link between something these firms are doing and a negative health impact. That’s going to be extremely difficult to establish and is far, far from established. I’m not unsympathetic to this case but I am not that optimistic. Happy to hear a legal perspective though.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  The geek wire article mentions that they are referring to the public nuisance law.
  - westurner 4y ago
    Probably would have been more cost effective to have worked with Amazon in Seattle on the Kids launcher on the Fire OS fork of Android (the one that merges the App Store and Launcher for the kids). It's not safe to allow school administrators to jam and deny students' (possibly distracting) communications at least on their personal devices, eh? Perhaps students could voluntarily submit to an App Launcher for focusing on school that deprioritizes content streams that haven't been made educational while attending unpaid conpulsory education programs under threat of prosecution for truancy, not nuisance. Non- FireOS Android forks have the "Digital Wellbeing" tools for helping oneself focus despite persistent distractions that will always exist IRL.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The school district isn't suing "on behalf" of students. The school district claim is that it has standing to sue on it's own behalf due to specific harms it has suffered as a direct result of these companies actions (e.g. increased mental healthcare costs.)
danielfoster 4y ago
Thank you for the link! The evidence of negative mental effects is definitely there. Labeling social media a public nuisance is an interesting strategy. I am skeptical that courts will be willing to make a leap to follow this reasoning, especially when social media is so pervasive outside the school setting. Kids used to read magazines during class and this was never considered a public nuisance. Neither was Pokémon. These are arguably less harmful, but parents can also use parental controls to restrict access during school hours if they wish to do so. It might be interesting to explore this through the lens of tobacco marketing in schools, though I’m sure this was already considered. How many parents are using parental controls? Do they work? (I’m not a parent and am genuinely curious).
tw98521358 4y ago
If they spent an equivalent amount of effort on figuring out how to manage the busses out offer classes to talented kids all the residents would be better off

shkkmo 4y ago

Similar (ish) lawsuits, (like the one against Juuls) haven't been dismissed. What makes you think this one is different?

LarryMullins 4y ago

TikTok offers their service to people they know to be teenagers, during school hours, when those teenagers are inside the school building (with TikTok's tracking of users, they surely know it.) I don't expect this lawsuit to succeed, but it's not entirely without merit and I do think the school district has some standing if for no other reason than because TikTok is serving videos to, and accepting uploads from, students who are actually in school.

zdragnar 4y ago
Every school system sets its own vacation days, and home schooled kids don't share the same set hours or days as the local school districts. I don't doubt that the harms are real, but I do suspect that you are putting an unreasonable burden on tik tok here. What I'm actually most curious about is when did schools start letting kids have cell phones during the school day? I was in school roughly just before smart phones were a thing, but texting was starting to become popular if you could get a plan that didn't charge per text. The expectation was your phone stayed in your locker if you brought it to school, and anyone caught with one during class or in the hallways during class hours would have it taken away until the day was over.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > Every school system sets its own vacation days, You're missing the part where TikTok knows where their users are, and know when a thousand kids are clustered together inside of a known school building in the middle of the day in the middle of the week. It's not rocket science to figure out those kids are in school. They know it. > home schooled kids The inability to perfectly know when a kid might be "in school" doesn't make much difference in my eye. They could easily detect it most of the time, and probably do, but choose to serve those kids anyway.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    >They could easily detect it most of the time, and probably do, but choose to serve those kids anyway. Seems ridiculous to push this responsibility on companies and app engineers. It isn't society's job to child proof the world for distracted children. Parents and guardians have to take the reigns and deal with discipline issues directly.