On March 28, 2024, Toronto District School Board (the Board) commenced a lawsuit against social media platforms including:
- Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook and Instagram);
- Snap Inc (SnapChat); and
- ByteDance Ltd. (TikTok) ("the Corporations").1
The Board alleges that the Corporations have negligently designed and marketed addictive products which have interfered with the Board's mandate to enhance student achievement and well-being.2
The Board is part of the Schools for Social Media Change initiative, which consists of school boards, schools, thought leaders, and organizations working together to demand accountability from social media technology giants to strengthen the education system.3 After the commencement of the lawsuit, thirteen other Ontario school boards and private schools have started individual actions against the Corporations. 4
The Corporations Motion to Strike
The Corporations brought a motion to strike out the Board's claim on the basis it was plain and obvious it could not succeed.5 On March 7, 2025, the motion decision, Toronto District School Board v Meta Platforms Inc., 2025 ONSC 1499 (CanLii) was released. The court dismissed the motion and permitted the claim to continue. 6
The legal basis of the Board's claim are negligence and public nuisance. The Corporations argued that:
- The Board's negligence claim could not succeed because the Corporations did not owe the Board a duty of care; and
- The Board's public nuisance claim could not succeed because the Board lacked standing and was seeking to expand the scope of the tort of public nuisance.7
Claim One: Negligence
In order to succeed in a negligence claim, there must be a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Board acknowledged that it is seeking to create a novel duty of care, which requires:
- Proximity;
- Foreseeability; and
- No policy concerns in imposing a novel duty of care.9
- Proximity
Proximity focuses on who could reasonably be affected by one's conduct, and whether the parties are in such a "close and direct relationship" that it would be "just and fair" to impose a duty of care.10
The Corporations argue that while the students may suffer, the Board does not. However, the Court concluded that the Board had pleaded sufficient facts to establish a potential duty of care. The defendants' conduct directly interfered with the Board's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate. The defendants' actions, including targeting students during school hours and designing addictive platforms, created a relationship of proximity with the Board.11
- Foreseeability
Foreseeability asks whether the harm caused is an objectively foreseeable consequence of the conduct. The Court held that the harm caused by the defendants' platforms was objectively foreseeable. The defendants knew or ought to have known about the adverse effects of their platforms on students and the resulting impact on schools. The Board's allegations, including attempts to have harmful content removed, supported foreseeability.12
- Policy Concerns
The Court rejected the defendants' argument that policy concerns, such as indeterminate liability, would be enough to reject the finding of a duty of care. The Court describes how this is a unique situation and found that the potential liability was not indeterminate, since the affected school boards were a definable group. 13
Claim Two: Public Nuisance
A public nuisance is any activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the public's interest in questions of health, safety, morality, comfort, or convenience.14 The Board is bringing a claim in public nuisance related to the Corporations' interference with the valuable public resource of education.15 The Court held that the Board's position with respect to public nuisance and the special damages sought is arguable and should be permitted to proceed.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the Corporations' motion and permitted the Board's claim to proceed.17
Future Implications
Should the Court recognize a novel duty of care in this case, social media companies could be found liable to individual users and public institutions, such as school boards. This could result in significant changes to how social media companies operate.
Footnotes
1. Toronto District School Board. Social Media Litigation. https://www.tdsb.on.ca/home/ctl/Details/mid/43823/itemid/267
2. Ibid.
3. Schools For Social Media Change. https://schoolsforsocialmediachange.ca/about-us/
4. Ibid.
5. Toronto District School Board v Meta Platforms Inc., 2025 ONSC 1499 (CanLII), (https://canlii.ca/t/kb4jm)
6. Ibid at para 3.
7. Ibid at para 4.
9. Ibid at para 25-26.
10. Ibid at para 34.
11] Ibid at paras 38-40.
12. Ibid at paras 67-72.
13. Ibid at paras 80 & 92.
14. Ibid at para 97.
15. Ibid at para 106.
17. Ibid at para 120.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
