I am skeptical that courts will be willing to make a leap to follow this reasoning, especially when social media is so pervasive outside the school setting. Kids used to read magazines during class and this was never considered a public nuisance. Neither was Pokémon. These are arguably less harmful, but parents can also use parental controls to restrict access during school hours if they wish to do so.

It might be interesting to explore this through the lens of tobacco marketing in schools, though I’m sure this was already considered.

How many parents are using parental controls? Do they work? (I’m not a parent and am genuinely curious).

Does the school district have standing to sue on behalf of the students? (Is the injury that they pay more for mental health services for students?)

I’m genuinely curious. There’s a surface analogy to the cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors, but those are controlled substances whereas YouTube is clearly not.

There isn’t even a clear causal effect of the from YouTube -> depression, IMO. Research on this has been quite low quality.

And what about the role of the parents who are the owners of the phones on which their children run TikTok?

Again genuine curiosity here, not trying to be a jerk.