Kids are dying and it's time to hold big tech accountable

Devastated parents across America are begging the world to listen -- teens killed by fentanyl-laced pills purchased on Snapchat, young lives lost after TikTok's algorithms fed them endless videos encouraging self-harm, and children driven to suicide when predators on social media try to trap them into cruel sextortion schemes.  

These tragedies are no longer isolated or rare. As the widespread use of social media has rapidly grown, they've become the predictable result of a product designed to target, manipulate, and addict kids, no matter the cost. 

Parents, doctors and advocates have been raising the alarm about social media's role in increased rates of addiction and abuse among children and teens, calling out Big Tech's ploy to profit from targeting kids. And despite deep divisions on Capitol Hill, members of both parties agree: Online safety must be a bipartisan priority. 

Yet one outdated law continues to shield Big Tech from accountability: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. When Section 230 passed in 1996, the internet was in its infancy -- long before smartphones, social media, or AI-driven algorithms. What began as a good-faith effort to encourage online innovation has been twisted by the digital giants who stand to benefit from its exploitation. Today, Big Tech companies use Section 230 as a sweeping shield against accountability for their actions. While they rake in profits from the dangerous products they create and target at kids, they cower behind this little-known clause to avoid facing any responsibility for the lives they've ruined. 

Big Tech wants us to believe the problem is beyond their control, but the fact remains that their platforms have been deliberately engineered to addict users and push dangerous material to vulnerable kids. Kids like Mason James Edens -- who, according to his parents, went from being the "class clown" to taking his own life after only 13 days of relentlessly being fed suicide videos on TikTok. Or 14-year-old Alexander Neville, whose parents say died from fentanyl poisoning after a drug dealer on Snapchat sold him counterfeit Oxycontin that contained enough fentanyl to kill four adults. 

Desperate to shift the public's focus, tech giants claim that parents' campaign for kids' online safety is about censorship. Yet, in recent landmark decisions, courts recognized that when companies design features that are dangerous, such as a speed filter that encourages reckless driving or an algorithm that feeds suicide videos to teens, those companies can and should be held responsible. These court decisions treat Big Tech's business practices and products just like those of every other industry in our country.  

Although companies have spent decades hiding behind Section 230, claiming they're simply hosting user-generated content, the Ninth Circuit's 2021 decision in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. laid the groundwork for increased platform accountability. Since then, courts have increasingly scrutinized how tech companies design and operate their products. In an ongoing case against Roblox and Discord, parents argue that the company enabled the sexual exploitation of a minor by an adult man. In another case, a court allowed a claim to proceed against video chat platform Omegle for allegedly designing a system that connected a child with a predator. These examples reflect a growing recognition that online platforms are more than just digital bulletin boards -- they're businesses designing and selling products to children, with real-world consequences.

These cases make a distinction between content and conduct. For example, when a company uses personal data to design systems that target kids with the intention of fueling addictive behaviors, that company is not simply hosting someone else's content -- it's engaging in intentional, profit-driven conduct that puts kids in clearly foreseeable danger. And increasingly, courts are saying that conduct cannot hide behind the safeguards for content that were originally intended when Section 230 was written. 

Faced with the possibility of being held accountable by parents, many tech companies are beginning to build safer products and strengthen protections -- an acknowledgment that proactive responsibility is possible. But without legal accountability, there's little incentive for them to keep doing so. 

Our kids deserve safer digital interactions, and the courts have begun to hold tech companies accountable -- now it's time for policymakers to act. Recently, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced a plan to introduce bipartisan legislation to limit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This is a real opportunity to make the digital environment a safer place for our kids, and we applaud their efforts. 

Mason and Alexander's parents -- and the parents of every child hurt or killed by an unsafe digital world -- deserve action. The question can no longer be whether tech companies should be held accountable, but how soon can we act to ensure that they are.