Child safety in social media platforms

I have read about a case against Meta alleging that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed in ways that encouraged children and teenagers to spend excessive amounts of time on the platforms, while Meta allegedly knew about risks to young users and made misleading statements concerning their safety. It appears evidence was presented concerning Meta’s internal knowledge of harms to young users, which made the litigation particularly significant. Can one institute similar case in Tanzania against Meta? 

RG, Mwanza 

Thank you for your intriguing question. We have also followed up on the case regarding child protection against social media platforms owner, Meta. It should be noted, however, that such case did not ultimately produce a final judgment on the merits. Instead, the parties reached a huge settlement. Under the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay settlement amount and implement substantial changes to Facebook and Instagram aimed at protecting minors. The measures include stronger age verification mechanisms; limits on teenagers’ usage; restrictions on nighttime notifications and access; enhanced parental controls; restrictions on certain harmful content and features; and additional protections for teenage accounts. Notably, Meta did not admit wrongdoing. The settlement, therefore, should not be legally described as a Court finding that Meta was liable for harming children.

Regarding instituting a matter in Tanzania, Meta case does not itself automatically create a Tanzanian claim. Although a Tanzanian claimant could use the same factual evidence, they would have to establish liability under Tanzanian law. For Tanzania, some laws are relevant. For example, under the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, if Meta collects, profiles, analyses or otherwise processes personal data of Tanzanian users, particularly children, the claimant could examine whether Meta complied with the Tanzanian requirements governing lawful processing; consent; processing of children’s personal data; transparency and information to data subjects; purpose limitation; data security obligations; and rights and remedies available to data subjects.

Similarly, the Electronic and Postal Communications Act and Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations expressly cover electronic media, including social media and applications.

It should, however, be noted that a Tanzanian Court would not automatically award damages merely because Meta’s conduct would violate a US personal data protection or consumer protection statute. You would need to identify the corresponding Tanzanian statutory obligation and establish its breach.

Last, though not exhaustive of what you would want to hear regarding this case, is the question of jurisdiction. Much as cyberspace knows no boundaries, it may not be enough to say that Tanzanians use Facebook and, therefore, Tanzania has jurisdiction over Meta. You would need to establish an appropriate jurisdictional connection between Meta, the conduct and Tanzania. Your lawyer can guide you further.