Recent articles in the news indicate that US Family Support organizations have threatened to sue the social networking and social media companies that are known popularly as Twitter, Facebook etc as owned by META. The issue with a law suit like this is that you cannot sue the zoo if you attend the zoo, pay the ticket and you get shocked by seeing two monkeys procreate. or shocked by the smell of the animals. ClIck here.

  Recent articles in the news indicate that US Family Support organizations have threatened to sue the social networking and social media companies that are known popularly as Twitter, Facebook etc as owned by META.   The issue with a law suit like this is that you cannot sue the zoo if you attend the zoo, pay the ticket and you get shocked by seeing two monkeys procreate. or shocked by the smell of the animals.   The Zoo is not responsible for your emotional reaction to this phenomenon if later on, you download youtube and see the video of the two monkeys as posted to youtube by a Chinese tourist who is booked into a Russian own Hotel with several locations in the US that offers excellent rates and most of their customers tend to be from countries, including Middle Eastern countries, where every citizen receives an internationally supportive income support that helps the citizen any where in the world where he may be travelling and doing his travel videos.

Such a law suit against the zoo or Youtube or Twitter is certain to fail since it is in the reasonable contemplation of the common man that animals would do what animals do in a zoo and it is understood that seeing animals act as animals do is why you go to a zoo or an aquarium.  We would say, first of all, that the consumer who thinks of complaining is responsible for placing himself in that zoo environment as he bought the ticket.  He is also responsible for his exposure to the zoo video content that may or may not be available on Youtube or on National Geographic television but you downloaded the Youtube app and you are the one who ordered that National Geographic channel with its animal type shows and documentaries that are intended to edify and educate.     

Like wise, if you download a social media app, then you consent to  participation as a member of that network and you accept the risks associated with that membership when you have no idea who the other members are and what might be posted.  The social media apps do their best to police their network it seems. Nonetheless, if one is concerned with the openness of Youtube or the cable channel universe or the social media networks, they should dissociate themselves by deactivating and then also deactivating their children if they are concerned.

In suing these social networking or TV apps,  we cannot sue for the evident general risks associated in being an app user.  Those concerns must have been addressed by the terms and conditions available to all members when downloading the app and we would have to look at a particular precise, specific incident where the app user can confirm he was affected by the app's use in some way or form. Would he sue in contract or in Tort law?  We sue in contract if we can say there is a contract between the app user or the school board and the app company. We would look at the terms and conditions and see how any particular allegedly offending incident amounts to a breach of contractual terms and conditions.  Is there privity of contract?  

 Frazer v. Canada is an example of when the government sues itself; applying the law to end some policy issue that might have been unintended but it does hurt families and communities when, as the real issue above and beyond apps,  mothers and children are distracted by their hunger and need for food.  This is the real issue when it comes to school distraction in some areas that do not see all citizens receiving at least $20,000.00 per year as income support although it should be $70,000.00 per year for all citizens across the country. That works out to 8.00 per hour to achieve our goals.  Federal funds are involved in the administration of every state and every province in addition to loans and funding from foreign nations who would expect that the economy is UN compliant and serving the needs of all growing families with school age children.   

The Fervent and effectual prayers of the righteous nation, Muslim, Jewish or Christian,  ensures that all citizens in that nation are receiving a sufficient good serving of income support so that every genetic mother and father enjoys this unseen project in public. It's good national defense. Its good for the community.         

If its tort law, and not contract,  how do we say that the social media app company owes the user a duty of care, how was the duty of care breached in a particular incident and how has the app user suffered harm as a result of that breach?   Is there sufficient proximity between the app company and the app user?   It seems the risk of being offended by content is inherent to the multi channel tv cable culture and the app culture. But, it is risk inherent in the use of thee technologies and the user carries much of the risk about how media  or a social networking app could impact his  or her feelings.  We see released to home movie box office premiers are quite popular and successful like Netflix and are quite similar in terms of risk when children do have credit cards and sometimes the cable networks do not maintain precise ratings for movies that one thought could earn more money in this format than at the theatre box office on the final balance sheet except that once aired on a smart tv that could be attached to a DVR hard drive, there is a moneyed "see it again" audience lost in the power of this connected digital copyable home technology.  Many in that audience are not paying for the replay and usually when you buy it through the cable provider.  How are we sure when children are distracted and watching that movie?  Families must play an active role in all of these issues and this is so with the education in general; a few hours per night and then back to video games that are also available on the cable network but there is not enough pac man or frogger yet or at least one sample board of Star Wars Jedi Night; Dark Forces 2.            

But, content is the ambit of content producers and channel owners where riskily offensive content or channels with that risky content should contain regular warnings to any known or unknown viewers and subscribers. Certain chewing gum commercials can be cause for complaint of suit when it may have prohibited content. Advertising for upcoming shows may be cause for a law suit as the content of the ad that depicts risky subject matter in the show' and there is no warning to the would be viewer  who may see this content and be embarrassed horribly and offended in front of his granny, mother, wife and children. They might have been soo shocked that they dropped a hot pot of ramen noodles on their dog, killing the dog and also burning their pinky toes while also suffering evident nervous shock; the only injury suffered by Ms. Donoghue in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.   

Your pleadings cannot just indicate how you feel about social networking and media apps and how they could distract children if they were used while in school or at home where the obvious answer is that parents and teachers can outlaw their use and take phones or demand they are turned off until homework or the school lesson is over. Law cases and formal Court pleadings are not to be used to provoke discussion since the pleadings, as filed, could lead to costs incurred if dismissed in Court for being frivolous with no basis in law.    All of this discussion in a court case has to be supported by evidence. So, how do you sue a social media company and for what? You need to remember that there is a burden on both sides to maintain responsible pleadings and if the case has no merit as a plaintiff, you may have to pay costs to the other side.  If it is about how these apps distract children, then maybe its best that the children are not allowed to use these apps during school time. Phones should be turned off when lessons are in progress. The families can decide to deactivate the apps.   It is hard for NGO's or School staff to jump into the seat of the app user who is the only person with standing in Court or maybe their parents as litigation guardians where they would have legal standing as a litigant or complainant but not the NGO or the School Staff.   Social Media Apps with a children's network within the network designed for children under 12 or members under 18, much like tv channels carrying content with young viewers in mind, is an idea. That can be achieved with recommendations by the NGO's and the like.  

If you find this article helpful and would like to speak with us about your project or concerns you may wish to bring before a Court, let us know. Email info.angelronan@mail.com.   You can also donate on this page using the link above if this was of some help to you.  

Angel Ronan Bank(TM) (of knowledge).