A judge in New York has ruled that Meta Platforms and ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, must face a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the mother of a 15-year-old boy who died while “subway surfing” on a moving train. The boy, Zackery Nazario, lost his life on February 20, 2023, after climbing onto the roof of a Brooklyn-bound J train with his girlfriend as it crossed the Williamsburg Bridge.
According to Zackery’s mother, Norma Nazario, a low beam struck her son causing him to fall between subway cars, where he was fatally run over. She found several videos related to subway surfing on Zackery’s social media accounts, which included Instagram and TikTok.
The lawsuit claims that Meta and ByteDance encouraged Zackery’s behavior by addicting him to their platforms, exposing him to dangerous content that promotes risky challenges. The court agreed that Norma Nazario can try to prove the companies targeted Zackery because of his age and actively pushed harmful content. The judge noted it is possible the social media firms did more than just provide a neutral platform—they may have identified vulnerable users and promoted harmful material specifically to them.
While Meta, ByteDance, and Snap (also mentioned in similar lawsuits) have claimed immunity under federal law and the First Amendment, the court allowed claims including wrongful death, product liability, and negligence against Meta and ByteDance to move forward. However, the judge dismissed claims against New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority, stating that the dangers of subway surfing are common knowledge and “the realities of life in this city” should have warned Zackery of the risk.
Subway surfing has become a deadly trend in New York City, with police reporting at least six deaths linked to the activity so far in 2024. The case, Nazario v ByteDance Ltd et al, is now underway in New York State Supreme Court.
The families affected by these tragedies and the growing number of lawsuits highlight ongoing debates about the responsibility social media platforms have when it comes to the content they promote—especially to young, impressionable users. As this case moves forward, it could set important legal precedents on how far companies must go to protect vulnerable users from harmful online challenges and trends.