OAKLAND, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – Netflix has defeated a class action lawsuit that blamed it for a rise in teen suicides following the release of the series 13 Reasons Why.
Oakland federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers first ruled her court was the proper forum – upsetting plaintiffs lawyers who appealed the decision – and on Jan. 12 she granted Netflix’s motion to dismiss.
The company used an anti-SLAPP defense, which allows defendants to cut off cases at an early stage if their conduct is protected by free speech (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).
“13 Reasons Why is not the first work to tell a story about teen suicide. The subject has been explored in countless literary works, motion pictures, and TV shows—everything from Romeo and Juliet to Dead Poets Society,” the company’s motion to dismiss says.
Rogers agreed and told lawyers at the Digital Justice Foundation and Hamilton Law of Las Vegas to determine if amending their complaint was a possibility. They said no and are likely to appeal Rogers’ ruling.
“Plaintiffs’ efforts to oppose the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the complaint does not concern the content or dissemination of the show do not persuade and are inconsistent with the allegations,” Rogers wrote.
She also ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring wrongful death claims on behalf of their sibling and that the negligence and strict liability claims being made were barred by the statute of limitations.
Netflix released 13 Reasons Why in March 2017 as a series adaptation of Jay Asher’s novel. The show involves a high school student who leaves behind 13 cassette tapes that reveal the 13 reasons why Hannah Baker killed herself.
The lawsuit says H.B. watched the show before hers suicide on April 28, 2017. It blames Netflix for prioritizing a market dominance of young viewers over their mental well-being.
The complaint says the National Institute of Mental Health associated a 29% increase in child-suicide rate in April 2017 with 13 Reasons Why – “a child-suicide spike that could have been avoided had Netflix taken basic moral responsibilities to warn and to not target its most vulnerable viewers,” the complaint says.
Netflix is represented by Blanca Young of Munger, Tolles & Olson.
“Plaintiffs’ allegation that Netflix was warned there was a ‘potential for suicide-contagion effects upon impressionable viewers’ does not establish the requisite ‘high degree of foreseeability’ to give rise to a legal duty,” the motion to dismiss said.
“Suicide is a ‘too idiosyncratic’ reaction to a television series for Netflix – or, for that matter, any other distributor of suicide-related content – to have reasonably anticipated.”