BV BoE considers joining lawsuit against social media companies – by Carly Winchell

The Buena Vista (BV) Board of Education (BoE) spent time at its Monday, June 24, meeting considering whether to join a multidistrict lawsuit against major social media companies, including TikTok, Meta, Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube.

Background to the trial

The type of prosecution was the subject of discussion and some confusion within the Council.

The case is being brought before the courts as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL), a federal civil litigation proceeding that consolidates individual cases to reduce the courts’ workload and improve their efficiency.

MDLs may resemble class actions; however, an MDL groups together similar individual cases for a court to decide, while a class action combines multiple plaintiffs into a single lawsuit.

Essentially, MDLs are many individual lawsuits decided collectively, while class actions consist of multiple people joining a single lawsuit.

The Council meeting record included a document from the Kansas City law firm of Wagstaff & Cartmell, which provided some information about this MDL.

The document also names the firms Beasley Allen and Goza & Honnold, both located in multiple states, as being involved in the case. Members of all three firms are involved in a nationwide lawsuit against JUUL, the e-cigarette maker. JUUL recently agreed to indemnify school districts, according to Wagstaff Cartmell.

“Our companies also believe that social media must be held accountable for the mental health crisis affecting our nation’s youth. We look forward to discussing these important issues with your organization and its members, and hope that you will consider joining this effort in the name of public education and the well-being of our children,” Wagstaff Cartmell’s letter states.

Wagstaff Cartmell anticipates “minimal inconvenience and disruption” to the school district’s time and resources. The firm acknowledges that it is “difficult to predict with certainty” what will happen.

Wagstaff Cartmell works on a “contingency fee” basis, meaning that school districts are not required to pay legal fees or expenses unless and until Wagstaff Cartmell recovers compensation on behalf of the school district.

As of January 31, 2024, more than 200 school districts have filed lawsuits against major social media companies (Education Week), with only one lawsuit filed by Seattle Public Schools. The lawsuits allege that social media is addictive, harmful to mental health, and intentionally targets young people who are susceptible to manipulation. The lawsuits allege that schools have been forced to devote resources to combating the deterioration of students’ mental health because of social media companies.

BV BoE considers pros and cons of joining MDL

During the meeting, BV BoE members discussed whether or not the Buena Vista School District (BVSD) should file its own lawsuit in this MDL. Board Director Mallory Brooks was absent from the meeting.

Board Chair Jessica Crites provided an overview of the situation, explaining the claim that social media companies knowingly harm young people, that the school would not be charged for its membership and that other Colorado districts had already joined the MDL.

She specifically referred to a January 23 meeting of the Douglas County School Board, where a presentation on the MDL was made, and suggested others view the recording of that meeting.

“I think it sends a helpful message,” Superintendent Lisa Yates said. “While we can’t name the specific harms that social media is causing students, we certainly see the impact.” Yates went on to say that the staff time required likely wouldn’t be too onerous and that it seemed unlikely that the BVSD would be called to court.

Yates referred to recent news that the GP was to require warnings on social media sites and that this boded well for the viability of the trial.

Board Vice Chairman Brett Mitchell said he has read articles and that “we’re in a very strange time right now with the advent of social media and AI.”

He said he thought the message it sent was important, but he wasn’t sure the trial would lead to significant change. He added: “It’s suggested and pretty well documented that they’re actually using it to groom kids to believe certain things.”

“They’re making stuff for me every day,” Mitchell said later in the meeting.

(It’s important to note that “grooming” and using data to deliver targeted content are two different concepts.)

Mitchell described how “clicks” are recorded and appears to refer to targeted advertising and algorithms that deliver content based on a user’s preferences rather than “grooming” by adults who specifically target minors for sexual abuse, which the word choice might have initially suggested.

The term “grooming” is also used by extremists targeting the LGBTQIA+ community to try to make it seem like they are harmful to children. One notable use of the term in recent Colorado news occurred when Colorado Republican Party Chairman David Williams called for the burning of pride flags and suggested that LGBTQIA+ people were “godless groomers.”

Board members Norm Nyberg, Lynn Montoya and George Richardson expressed support for joining the lawsuit, largely to send a message.

Board chair Paula Dylan was the only one to express hesitation about taking legal action.

Dylan acknowledged the addictive nature of social media, but also highlighted its positive aspects, particularly for young members of marginalized communities who use social media platforms as lifelines.

Dylan explained that she struggled with the idea of ​​joining the movement without having data showing an impact on BVSD.

“What I have a problem with is how far we’ve come. I know we’re working on things like banning cell phones in schools, but we haven’t done that yet,” Dylan said. She added that things would have been different if authorities had tried to address the issue, but that they continue to see problems with social media.

“If you’re part of a marginalized population in a rural area like ours, sometimes the only way to find someone who looks like you or understands you is through social media. And it’s a lifeline for these kids.”

“I really have a hard time saying, ‘Yeah, let’s jump on this bandwagon and see if we can get some money,’” Dylan continued. “I don’t know if we’ve done enough to try to mitigate anything or if we have enough data to say that this is really a problem here.”

Other board members challenged the idea that money was the problem. “I agree with that message,” Richardson responded. “Your opening statement is that it’s very addictive.”

“I don’t know if I fully agree with the grievance statement,” Dylan said. “We should work on what constitutes safe use of social media. Do I agree with taking legal action? No.”

“What steps could we take to mitigate this?” Yates asked. “What would a school do?”

Dylan offered several suggestions, such as limiting cell phone use at school, educating parents about social media for their children and themselves, and other types of outreach. She explained that she didn’t know all the possible avenues, but that there were a variety of resources that could be used.

Montoya explained that she believed joining the lawsuit did not mean saying “no social media” and that it was about a statement and principle rather than money. Children would still have that access at home even if cellphone use were restricted in schools, Montoya argued.

Richardson agreed, saying he interpreted it as an attack on data collection and that it was more about “what information they can collect, retain and use to ‘groom,’ or whatever word you want to use, and target individuals.”

Montoya said the data collection was an invasion of privacy. “There’s nothing on the Internet that’s protected and private. . . I have no problem educating parents and students about social media, but I keep coming back to this. I don’t think it’s about the money if we’re going to buy into it. It’s not.”

Crites suggested that if funding were received, it could be used for mental health efforts for students. Crites agreed that there were things that could be improved to address the problem at the local level.

Nyberg said better guidelines are needed, and those in favor of legal action seemed to suggest that it would lead to guidelines or rules. Montoya compared joining the MDL to signing a letter of support. Richardson said it would lead to legislation, while Dylan pointed out that legal action and a letter are two different things.

A successful lawsuit could set a legal precedent for the future, but it wouldn’t directly create new laws or restrictions. Mitchell said a lawsuit like this would draw attention to the issue.

Dylan explained that she would be more comfortable signing if the district was already trying to resolve the issue directly.

Yates said the district is addressing the issue, but not directly. She said that while the district’s actions aren’t specifically about social media, she believes their efforts to connect and engage kids face-to-face are helping to address the issues. “We’re doing everything we can to counteract the effects of social media on kids.”

The board does not need to make a decision immediately. Crites said he should file his case by September. She suggested the attorney come talk to the board to provide more information.

There was some discussion about when to schedule this meeting, with many hoping for July 8, a date Dylan notably explained earlier in this same meeting that she would not be available.