Court Declines to Rule Out Duty of Care Owed by Social Media Platforms to School Boards

In Toronto District School Board v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al. (2025 ONSC 1499), Ontario Superior Court Justice Leiper dismissed a motion to strike a lawsuit commenced by the Toronto District School Board against several major social media companies. The decision confirms the potential for third parties to claim against tech giants for the broader societal impacts of their platforms on young people and education systems. As the case proceeds, it will also serve as a key test of how far corporate duties of care can extend in cyberspace, as plaintiffs argue for new and wide-ranging duties and categories of harm extending beyond direct injury to those with whom online companies interact directly.

Background

In March 2024, the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) commenced a claim for negligence and public nuisance against several major social media companies, including Meta (Facebook), Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok (collectively, the “Platforms”). The Board’s claim – to which other Ontario schools and school boards also signed on – alleges the Platforms’ products were deliberately designed to be addictive to children, causing widespread harm such as cyberbullying, anxiety, depression, and addiction. The Board argues these issues have disrupted students’ education and increased school costs required to address them. The Board’s claim seeks damages for its economic harms caused by these disruptions.

The Board’s lawsuit has attracted considerable attention and follows a wave of similar claims filed in the United States, where school boards and other entities have argued social media platforms are contributing to declining student well-being. In the motion at issue, the Platforms sought to strike the Board’s lawsuit for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing it was “plain and obvious” the claims could not succeed. The Court dismissed the Platforms’ motion, clearing the way for the Board’s claims to proceed to trial.

The Court’s Decision

The Platforms argued on the motion that the Board could not possibly establish the first element of the legal test for negligence – that the Platforms owed a duty of care to the Board – because no such duty had previously been acknowledged in the jurisprudence, and there was neither the necessary proximity between the Platforms and the Board, nor foreseeability between the Platforms’ actions and damages suffered by the Board. In addition, the Platforms argued residual policy concerns prevented the creation of the duty. The Court’s consideration of each of these arguments is discussed further below.

The Proximity Analysis: The Platforms argued that, while they had a relationship with students who were using their social media platforms, the Board was attempting to create an artificial connection to the Platforms by “bootstrapping” its claim onto the affected students. The Court disagreed. Specifically, the Court determined that, if the Board’s allegations were proven (and on a motion to strike, the Court assumes they can be), the Platforms had “inserted themselves” into a relationship with the Board by targeting students during school hours. The Court commented that the novelty of the Board’s claim was no bar to its ability to establish proximity: “While the entry may be through cyberspace and students’ digital devices instead of the front doors of the school, this novel factual context does not mean proximity in law is defeated. Rather, it means proximity may be established.”

The Court also rejected the Platforms’ argument that negligence law requires a direct relationship between the parties, emphasizing legal proximity is based on foreseeable consequences rather than contractual ties. In coming to this conclusion, the Board relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence, as well as more recent case law acknowledging duties of care owed beyond end-users of a product, for the proposition that a duty of care extends not just to contractual counterparties or those with whom a party has a direct relationship, but also to others who come within the product’s proximity.

The Foreseeability Analysis: The Platforms further argued they did not owe a duty of care to the Board because any damage caused to the Board by the Platforms’ actions was not foreseeable. The Court disagreed, finding that on the Board’s theory of the case, the Platforms had intentionally interfered with students’ attention, and educational disruptions were a foreseeable consequence of these actions.

The Analysis of Residual Policy Factors: Even if the Court accepted a duty of care might be owed based on proximity and foreseeability, the Platforms argued overriding policy concerns should negate any such finding for several reasons, including the concern of indeterminate liability. The Court was not convinced, noting defendants commonly “raise the spectre of indeterminate liability in cases involving novel duties of care”, but the scope of liability is better analyzed as a factor in the duty of care analysis about whether there is a proximate relationship between the parties. In the present case, the Court found the Board’s claims focused on specific harm caused by the Platforms’ products, and the universe of school boards affected by the Platforms’ marketing choices was of a finite quality and knowable in advance. The Court suggested the analysis was impacted by the market in which the Platforms operated, stating “The [Platforms] chose a market model which focuses on enticing children and youth in large numbers.”

Public Nuisance: The Court also considered and allowed the Board’s claim of public nuisance to survive, holding it is arguable an addictive product that interferes with the mental health and educational aspirations of students is a public nuisance that requires a remedy.

Key Takeaways

While surviving a motion to dismiss in no way equates to ultimately prevailing at trial, the Court’s decision provides an early indication that the Board’s claim will not be barred by its legal novelty or the complex factual backdrop of online spheres. The Board will likely be required to submit detailed factual and expert evidence to make out its allegations of “psychologically manipulative” marketing techniques, that the Platforms “knew about the adverse and costly impact to the Board when it marketed its products to the students,” and that they intentionally targeted students during school hours.

Outside of the specific social media context, this decision serves as a reminder to all corporations that they may owe a duty of care to any persons who may be potentially harmed by their actions, even if such persons are not in a direct contractual or other relationship with them. And, as in the Platforms’ case, an argument that the corporation did not specifically seek out a particular relationship is unlikely to find favour if the elements of proximity and foreseeability are met.

For further information on the TDSB v. Meta decision and the scope of corporate duties of care, please contact any member of our Commercial Litigation Group.