US First Social Media Platform Addiction Case Concludes - Meta, Google Face Landmark Defeat

Designing addictive algorithms for internet platforms, now they must pay huge damages for past successes.

In an unprecedented ruling, a jury in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Wednesday found that social media giant Meta and Google’s largest global video platform YouTube should be held responsible for a woman who became depressed and anxious due to early social media addiction, and awarded $3 million in damages. Meta is ordered to pay $2.1 million, and Google at least $900,000.

Specifically, the plaintiff is 20-year-old Kaley G.M., who has been watching videos on YouTube since age 6 and started using photo-sharing app Instagram at age 9. She attributes various harms to these platforms, including anxiety, depression, and body image distortion.

As the first case of its kind to go to trial, a 12-member jury voted 10 to 2 that Meta and Google were negligent in their platform design and operation, and should have warned users about potential dangers to minors. Unlike criminal cases, some civil lawsuits do not require unanimous jury decisions.

The jury also ruled that the two companies should be liable for punitive damages, with the amount to be determined by the court. This could significantly increase the final compensation beyond the current figure.

Snapchat and TikTok were also defendants in the case, but both reached confidentiality settlements with Kaley before the trial began.

This lawsuit is also a “bellwether” case, linked to about 2,000 pending lawsuits filed by individuals, their parents, or school districts. These lawsuits accuse social media giants of manufacturing defective products by addicting young users through social media feeds.

Two other “bellwether” cases are expected to be heard in California courts this year. If internet platforms continue to lose cases, they could face a “litigation abyss” similar to the tobacco and opioid industries, leading to severe economic and reputational damage and fundamentally changing how these platforms operate.

Over the past decades, U.S. tech companies have relied heavily on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields internet platforms from liability for user-generated content.

However, in this case, Kaley’s lawyers took a different approach, bypassing the high threshold set by Section 230. They argued that the issue is not the content posted by users, but the architecture of social media platforms themselves.

They claim that features like infinite scrolling, continuous notifications, autoplay, and beauty filters turn apps like Instagram and YouTube into “digital casinos,” with irresistible appeal to young people, making it difficult for them to put down their phones.

Kaley’s lawyer Mark Lanier said, “How do you make a child never want to put down their phone? That’s called engineering addiction mechanisms.”

Regarding the ruling, Meta issued a statement saying they “respect but disagree” with the decision and are evaluating legal options.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaeda responded publicly, stating that the case misrepresents YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. The company does not agree with the ruling and plans to appeal.

(Source: Caixin)