An Ontario court has refused to strike a negligence and public nuisance claim brought by the Toronto District School Board against several social media corporations — including Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.
The board alleges that addictive product design, harmful content delivery, and inadequate safety measures have directly harmed students and caused the board significant economic losses. The court found that it is not “plain and obvious” the case would fail, allowing the matter to proceed toward a possible trial.
Underpinning this decision is the board’s argument that the corporations’ platforms target and exploit students’ developing brains, leading to compulsive usage, mental health issues and, in turn, tangible financial burdens on school administrations. The court emphasized that, for the purpose of a motion to strike, it must assume the material facts in the statement of claim are true. On that basis, the judge—referred to simply as “the court”—concluded the board’s allegations could support a viable claim in both negligence and public nuisance.
“The board alleges that these products are like ‘any addictive substance,’ and that students are at special risk of developing compulsive use and/or addiction,” the court noted, quoting directly from the statement of claim.
Background and parties
The Toronto District School Board is a large public entity that oversees hundreds of schools and thousands of students. The defendants (collectively, “the Corporations”) include a group of major social media companies, along with various subsidiaries.
The Board’s statement of claim alleges that, to drive profit, the Corporations designed their social media platforms to be “addictive” and “harmful,” especially to minors. The claim cites dopamine rewards and other behavioural feedback loops as ways of inducing overuse, ultimately undermining students’ focus and mental health. In responding to these pressures — from increased counselling costs to staff time spent investigating cyberbullying incidents — the Board contends it has suffered economic damage.
Negligence claim: proximity and foreseeability
Central to the Corporations’ motion was the argument that no legal duty of care could exist between a school board and a social media company. They maintained that the Board had no direct relationship with them and therefore could not claim to be a “neighbour” in law. However, the court took a different view.
“On the Board’s theory of the case, the significant educational disruption and losses … were objectively foreseeable,” the decision reads.
The Board says the Corporations specifically target students by designing attention-grabbing interfaces, employing geo-location, and making constant algorithmic “pushes” of content. According to the court, those allegations—if proven—could show the Corporations placed themselves in a relationship of proximity with the Board. Because school authorities have a statutory mandate to protect and educate students, it is not “plain and obvious” that the Corporations could entirely disregard the Board’s interests.
The court also found that the alleged harms, such as rising rates of anxiety or property damage from social media “challenges,” were arguably foreseeable by social media operators. The Corporations’ knowledge, said the court, would not need to be proven at this stage; rather, the question is whether “someone in the defendant’s position ought reasonably to have foreseen” the claimed harms.
Policy concerns
The Corporations warned that recognizing a duty of care in these circumstances would unleash “indeterminate liability.” The court acknowledged this concern as a valid policy argument but held that it was not sufficient to strike the claim. The judge stated that large-scale or “significant” liability does not necessarily equate to “indeterminate” liability. Additionally, many of the alleged harms revolve around student-focused misuse, where the scope of affected school boards is finite.
Another argument involved policy considerations relating to trade agreements and public funding. The Corporations highlighted Article 19.17.2 of Canada’s treaty obligations under CUSMA, contending it bars treating interactive computer services as content providers. The court noted that while these defences could be argued, they did not automatically negate the duty of care at the pleadings stage.
Public nuisance claim: interfering with education as a public right
The second major piece of the Board’s lawsuit is a claim in public nuisance. Historically, public nuisance claims have centred on roads, waterways, and public health. Here, the Board contends the right to education should be included within the scope of “public rights.” The Corporations argued that this would unreasonably expand the tort of public nuisance to intangible harms, such as the mental wellbeing of students.
Yet the court concluded that it is “not plain and obvious” the Board’s public nuisance argument must fail. Quoting from the claim, the court noted the Board’s assertion that “any activity which unreasonably interferes with the public’s interest in questions of health, safety, morality, comfort or convenience” could constitute a nuisance. The Board views education as an essential resource that has been undermined by social media platforms’ harmful design.
“It is arguable that an addictive product that interferes with the mental health and educational aspirations of students is a public nuisance that requires a remedy,” the court wrote, citing the statement of claim.
While the merits of public nuisance in this context remain to be tested at trial, the court refused to dismiss the claim outright.
Implications of the ruling
The court’s refusal to strike the Board’s claim means the lawsuit will move forward, putting the Corporations in a position to defend their design choices and marketing strategies. Although the court stressed that none of the allegations have been proven, it found the Board’s case raises legitimate legal issues regarding duty of care and possible tort liability.
The Board’s public nuisance argument, too, was allowed to stand, with the court signalling that whether education qualifies as a “public resource” in law is a question best addressed with a full evidentiary record.
As of now, the Board’s multi-pronged claim in negligence and public nuisance will proceed to the next stages, and the Corporations will have to respond in detail. If the case ultimately goes to trial, it could offer a rare judicial examination of how social media design and operation may expose companies to liability for the downstream effects of their platforms on public institutions.
For more information, see Toronto District School Board v Meta Platforms Inc., 2025 ONSC 1499 (CanLII).
