Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by huitzitziltzin 1254 days 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.

3 comments

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.)
The geek wire article mentions that they are referring to the public nuisance law.
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.

.. I appended above and addressed what you are asking.
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

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.