When the internet plays a role in a plaintiff’s injury, there can be considerable roadblocks barring recovery.  At the heart of the dispute over how social media should be legally addressed is the balance between maintaining freedom of expression on the open internet and imposing regulations on social media companies to ensure online safety.  When plaintiffs allege that a social media company had a duty to warn them about dangers on its site, courts are generally reluctant to extend the special relationship doctrine to encompass the social media-user relationship.  In addition to the high bar set by courts, different jurisdictions vary in their analyses of the special relationship question, often resulting in the plaintiffs’ claims being dismissed.

This Note examines the different factors that courts consider when deciding whether to create a special relationship, both in internet and noninternet cases.  This Note then advocates for courts to place greater emphasis on a social media company’s superior knowledge when evaluating the company’s duty to warn.  To demonstrate how that may affect the outcome of future cases, this Note will analyze Internet Brands v. Doe from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit through the lens of superior knowledge.  This Note concludes by recognizing the importance of social media in modern society but ultimately calls for legal reform to hold social media companies responsible for the safety of their users.