Recent jury verdicts in California and New Mexico involving Meta Platforms and Alphabet’s Google are sharpening scrutiny of social media companies as plaintiffs advance legal theories aimed at holding platforms liable for harm to children. Here’s a look at how the cases could be an early test of how courts may handle similar claims going forward.
The jury ordered Meta and Google on Wednesday to pay a combined $6mn in damages to plaintiff Kaley GM, a 20-year-old who said she suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts after becoming addicted to the companies’ platforms at a young age because of their attention-grabbing design. The jury found that both Meta and Google were negligent in designing their platforms and failed to warn consumers about their risks.
Separately, a jury in New Mexico on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375mn after finding the company misled users about the safety of Facebook and Instagram while enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms in a lawsuit brought by the state’s attorney general.
The trials were the first to test whether Big Tech can be held liable for the design of apps blamed for harming young people’s well-being. Meta, Snapchat and parent Snap Inc, Google’s YouTube, and TikTok and parent ByteDance are facing thousands of lawsuits in federal and state courts over claims they knowingly designed their platforms with features that addict children and teens, fueling a mental health crisis.
The Los Angeles trial is meant to serve as a bellwether, or test case, for the thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in California state courts. Verdicts in bellwethers are often used by judges and attorneys to assess the potential value of remaining claims and guide settlement negotiations. Typically, multiple bellwethers will be tried before a broader settlement or resolution is reached.
Beyond the California state court cases, more than 2,400 lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies that make similar claims have been centralized in the California federal court. The federal litigation also includes lawsuits brought by state attorneys general alleging harm to their states, as well as cases by school districts that say social media addiction has caused costly disruptions and problems.
While there can be some coordination between state and federal courts overseeing similar claims, verdicts in state court do not typically have a direct impact on the federal litigation.
Both the New Mexico and the California cases highlighted a central legal dispute that is likely to shape future cases: how much federal law shields social media companies from liability.
Meta, Google and other social media companies have argued such lawsuits are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally protects platforms from liability over user-generated content. Plaintiffs counter that their claims target the sites’ design features that cause harm rather than the content itself.
The judges in Los Angeles and Santa Fe rejected that argument when they allowed the cases to go to trial. The verdicts could form the basis of appeals that would give higher courts a chance to weigh in on the key question of whether Section 230 applies to claims focused on platform design rather than content.
In May, the judge in New Mexico will oversee a second phase of that trial where the state attorney general will ask for a court order directing Meta to make changes to its platforms and for additional monetary damages. Meta said it will appeal both verdicts. Google said it will appeal in the Los Angeles case. In addition to the Section 230 question, the companies could also base appeals on events surrounding the trial, including the judge’s decision-making on evidence, or jury or attorney conduct.
Yes, in both state and federal courts. A trial is scheduled for June in federal court in a lawsuit brought by a school district in Breathitt County, Kentucky, against Meta, ByteDance, Snap and Google, according to court records. In California state court, another trial is slated to begin in July involving claims against Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat.