[EarlKing]

Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco parentis for children in their care that now somehow their supervisors have power of attorney over their charges.

This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit. No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.

[LarryMullins]

It's an easy pretzel for teachers/school administrators to tie themselves into, because these people are on the frontline of witnessing the ways in which parents can neglect and abuse their kids. It's easy for teachers to fall into believing themselves / the state a better steward of children than their own parents.

[jbm]

I'm not sure if that is the case, but if it is, it is the educational equivalent of the police seeing everyone as a threat because they deal constantly with the law breakers of society.

[LarryMullins]

It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's very similar. Teachers have to interact with all students, not just the ones who have trouble, but the ones who have trouble occupy a greater portion of the attention of teachers. So teachers spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on the matter of neglect and abuse. The saddest most depressing cases stay in the minds of teachers for a long time, while the normal well cared for students are soon forgotten.

[shkkmo]

How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here?

The argument is simply that the school district has suffered damages from specific behavior by the social media companies, that has nothing to with an ability to make decisions on the student's behalf.

[EarlKing]

Having read the complaint, no, it doesn't have relevance here (obviously I made that claim prior to reading the complaint), but what they do assert is even worse: They're trying to claim that use of Facebook, Tiktok, etc and consequent behavioral issues among students constitutes a nuisance. The phrase "void for vagueness" would seem to apply here.

[tomsthumb]

>How does “power of attorney” have any relevance here?

It doesn’t and that’s Earl’s point. That would be the best way for them to have any standing, but it just doesn’t line up.

[EarlKing]

It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence my later comment that even if we took their factual assertions at face value the charge asserted should be void for vagueness.