Ruling in Case of 10-year-old’s “Blackout Challenge” Death on TikTok, Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Social Media Giant’s Immunity Claim

/EIN News/ -- PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 28, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that TikTok is not entitled to limitless, sweeping immunity under the terms of the highly controversial Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. The ruling, and a stinging concurring opinion, was issued yesterday in the case of Estate of Nylah Anderson v. TikTok, Inc. et. al., Case No. 22-3061 (on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Case No. 2:22-cv-01849).

Ten-year-old Nylah Anderson, of suburban Philadelphia, died of asphyxiation at home December 12, 2021, while attempting the “Blackout Challenge,” which she had seen on her TikTok “For You Page.” Tawainna Anderson, Nylah’s mother, represented by Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, filed a lawsuit in 2022 to hold TikTok accountable for its dangerous actions that caused her daughter’s preventable death. TikTok defended the claims arguing that they were fully immune from the harm they caused pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Yesterday, the appellate court definitively ruled that TikTok was entitled to no such protections.

Ms. Anderson’s attorneys said the Third Circuit’s ruling “confirms that the courthouse doors are open to Tawainna Anderson in her unwavering pursuit of justice on behalf of her late daughter.”

Jeffrey Goodman, partner at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, who argued on behalf of the Anderson family in the Third Circuit, asserted, “Big Tech just lost its ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card.”

This ruling ensures that the powerful social media companies will have to play by the same rules as all other corporations, and when they indifferently cause harm to children, they will face their day in court.

In his concurring opinion, Judge Paul Matey stated, in part, “Nylah, still in the first year of her adolescence, likely had no idea what she was doing or that following along with the images on her screen would kill her. But TikTok knew that Nylah would watch because the company’s customized algorithm placed the videos on her ‘For You Page’”.

The Anderson Family, while still grieving the loss of Nylah, welcomed the Court’s ruling, stating through counsel, “Nothing will bring back our beautiful baby girl. But we are comforted knowing that – by holding TikTok accountable - our tragedy may help other families avoid future, unimaginable suffering. Social Media companies must use their technology to prevent dangerous content from being consumed by young children; they’ve got to stop exploiting children in the name of profit.”

Samuel Dordick, partner at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, who worked alongside Mr. Goodman, added, “For decades, Big Tech companies like TikTok have used Section 230 to protect them from accountability for their egregious and predatory conduct. This resounding ruling has decisively stated Section 230 does not extend that far.”

NOTE: Any interview requests should be directed to Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky. The Court’s Opinion, as well as the court papers can be found on the firm’s website: www.smbb.com. 

Contacts:
Jeffrey P. Goodman / 215-840-6450 / jgoodman@smbb.com
Steph Rosenfeld / 215-514-4101 / steph@idadvisors.com

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a20d1cbc-2979-439a-9aa3-ce838e55a6b6