Social Media Trial Begins in California, Potentially Changing the Landscape for Big Tech
What is shaping up to be a landmark case could decide whether Big Tech is responsible for harming kids through the use of addictive apps. A California state court is presiding over the case that raises questions about whether Instagram and YouTube are responsible for harming a woman's mental health. Here is a look into this case and the implications that it could have across all social media platforms.
Potential Landmark Case Could Hold Social Media Companies More Accountable
A 20-year old woman identified in court filings as K.G.M. is alleging that her mental health has suffered greatly over the years due to her addiction to Instagram and YouTube. K.G.M. filed the lawsuit against Meta Platforms, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, as well as Alphabet's Google, owner of the app YouTube. The plaintiff said that the attention-grabbing design of both platforms contributed to her addiction to the apps when she was younger.
Court experts believe that a verdict that rules against the tech companies could set a precedent for future cases across state court systems. Tech companies Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap currently face thousands of lawsuits in California alone. Up to this point, the courts have largely found in favor of the tech industry, absolving them of responsibility for user harm.
The latest case is predicted to last into March. It is expected that Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be called as a witness at the trial. Although K.G.M. had also brought suits against TikTok and Snap, these were both settled outside of court before the trial.
K.G.M.'s legal attempt is trying to show that the tech companies were negligent when they designed the apps. The lawyers are also claiming that the app operators did not warn the public about the risks, alleging that the platforms were responsible for K.G.M.'s injuries. Should the jury rule in favor of the plaintiff, they will also consider whether to award K.G.M. damages for pain and suffering. In addition, the jury could also decide to impose punitive damages.
According to K.G.M.'s lawyer, Mark Lanier, internal company documents demonstrate that the platforms "built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose." K.G.M. is also expected to be put on the stand at some point during the trial.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl instructed jurors that the companies cannot be held responsible for recommending content created by users. However, Kuhl told the jurors that the companies can be held liable for the design and operation of their platforms.
Defense Strategy of Meta and Google
Meta and Google will attempt to point to other facets of K.G.M.'s life that could have caused her distress. The lawyers for these companies are also expected to highlight their commitment to youth safety, attempting to differentiate their platforms from those that intentionally upload harmful content.
U.S. law has traditionally protected internet companies, saying that they are not responsible for the material their users post. However, that could also change should the jury in this case side with the plaintiff. A ruling in favor of K.G.M. could set a precedent for similar lawsuits that claim the platforms are designed to be addictive and harmful.
In addition to the slew of cases against tech companies at the state level, there are currently more than 2,300 similar suits that have been filed by school districts, parents, and other state attorneys general in federal court. The judge overseeing these lawsuits is looking at the liability protections of the companies in advance of the first trial at the federal level. This trial could take place as soon as June.
The case in California is not the only potential landmark trial that could have major implications for the app industry. Another trial against Meta kicked off on Monday in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In this case, the state's attorney general is accusing Meta of exposing children and teenagers to sexual exploitation through the use of its platforms.
The attorney general is also claiming that Meta is profiting from this practice. Donald Migliori, a lawyer representing the New Mexico attorney general, told the jury that Meta "made its profits while publicly misrepresenting that its platforms were safe for youth, downplaying or outright lying about what it knows about the dangers of its platforms.”
Other countries have already taken steps to reduce the harm caused to minors at the hands of social media. For example, both Australia and Spain have banned access to social media platforms for users under the age of 16. Several other nations are considering taking similar action to reduce this threat by setting age limits.
Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.