Fighting Big Tech’s lobbying efforts for legislative immunity

Particular emphasis on immunity for the harms of social media

2025 December

When industries and corporations ask for federal immunity from civil liability when their products cause injuries and death, AAJ fights to make sure that injured people will have full access to our nation’s courts. This fight gets harder every year, especially in the Big Tech arena. 

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act allows social media companies and digital platforms to avoid responsibility for massive and systemic harm caused by dangerously designed social media products. AAJ supports legislation to repeal Section 230 immunity and, along with AAJ members and their clients, is calling for the prioritization of people’s rights and safety over
Big Tech’s profits.

Instead of producing real solutions to fix their products, Big Tech is pouring resources into evading accountability. A review of federal lobbying expenditures for the first three quarters of 2025 reveals that Big Tech has deployed 300 lobbyists and has spent $88 million. In this same period, AAJ has spent $4 million – and Big Tech is not the only wolf at the door. 

Big tech in the states

AAJ does not only work in the federal arena. Our State Affairs Department monitors anti-civil justice initiatives and legislation in every state so that it can alert state-trial-lawyer associations about emerging trends and provide analysis and support to enable states to maximize their resources.

There has been significant state legislature activity surrounding kids’ use of social media this year. Most of these bills center on the dangers social media products pose to children and call for more to be done to protect kids on social media. 

The most common provision in these bills is age verification. AAJ has tracked approximately 28 bills (introduced) that mandate that social media platforms enact an age verification system.
In addition, nine bills have been filed that seek the implementation of age verification in app stores. These bills vary in their age-restriction requirements. Typically, the verification is meant to ascertain which users are under the ages of 14, 16, or 18, and then restrict or block kids’ ability to have an account.

Approximately 15 of the age-verification bills we tracked subsequently require social media platforms to enact higher data protection for minors on their platforms. These protections include: 

• requiring verification data to be deleted 
• restrictions on data for targeted advertisement use
• restrictions on the collection of any data at all from a minor

Some bills acknowledge the addictive nature of targeted algorithms and ban
the use of such algorithms for minors. Some require platforms to disable automatic scrolling and autoplay for minors. Some state that social media feeds may only appear in chronological order to minors. 

Amplifying the message

Reporters are ramping up their coverage of social media products and the injuries – and in some cases, deaths – they cause to children. AAJ’s grassroots campaign Take Justice Back®(TJB) is sharing these stories and cases online with the public and in their inboxes. 

Take Justice Back sheds light on predatory business practices, abusive corporate tactics, and the importance of protecting people’s rights. I encourage you to tell your clients about it so that they can follow us and stay informed.

Tech and the courts

There is a proposed rule of evidence, FRE 707 – Machine-Generated Evidence, currently in public comment through February 16, 2026. The proposed rule applies the reliability factors of FRE 702(a)-(d) to lay witnesses or to lay a foundation. 

While the original purpose of the rule was to ensure the reliability of AI evidence not offered by an expert witness, which would still be under FRE 702, the scope of the proposed rule is much broader than AI and applies to anything that is machine-generated. While the proposed rule exempts simple scientific instruments, the examples provided, including a digital thermometer and an electronic scale, are so simple that the rule potentially covers a vast variety of machine evidence that is already considered reliable by the courts. It would be concerning to have information excluded because a lay witness cannot explain how machine-generated data, such as Google location services or text messages, are reliable. 

AAJ encourages members to review the proposed rule and accompanying committee note and submit a comment by February 16, 2026. More information is available in AAJ’s Evidence Rules Comment Packet (login required) or on Regulations.gov (click on document details). Since state rule-makers can copy the federal rules of evidence, it is important for the plaintiff bar to weigh in. Please consider submitting a comment on firm letterhead on this topic or one of the proposed amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure that would be
beneficial to plaintiff practitioners. See more information in AAJ’s Civil Rules Comment Packet.

Looking ahead

Given the increased frequency of congressional hearings examining Big Tech and harms impacting not only children but all users, this is an area of widespread and growing concern. It is an issue that affects all people (including lawmakers), regardless of their political affiliation. AAJ is committed to fighting for accountability in this arena, to righting the wrongs of Section 230, and to making sure that people, not Big Tech profits, are prioritized.