Los angeles: Keeping an eye on the future of online media after a court ruled that the platform makes people 'addicted'. This event marks a significant "turning point" in the world of social media and giant tech companies, following a jury ruling in Los Angeles last week. This is the first time in history that a major tech company has been held responsible for "designing addictive products."
According to Thai News Agency, in a weeks-long trial, a jury in a Los Angeles court heard the story of a 20-year-old woman, using the pseudonym Kelly, the plaintiff in this case. She began watching Google's YouTube videos at the age of six and using Instagram at the age of nine, attracted by the platforms' appealing design and lack of age verification. Over time, she developed stress and depression due to believing her appearance was abnormal and different from other users. She also experienced online bullying and other mental health issues, leading to suicidal thoughts. After more than 40 hours of deliberation, the jury largely agreed that both companies were aware that the design and functionality of their platforms were intended to be harmful when used by minors. They also agreed that the platforms failed to adequately warn of such dangers, resulting in the plaintiffs' damages.
The court found Meta (owner of Instagram) and Google (owner of YouTube) guilty of negligent design of platforms harmful to minors, specifically for intentionally using features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and notification systems designed to keep users glued to their screens. The court ordered both companies to pay a total of $6 million in damages, divided into $3 million in remedial damages and $3 million in punitive damages. META is ordered to pay $4.2 million and Google $1.8 million. TikTok and Snapchat were also initially defendants in this case, but they reached out-of-court settlements before the trial began.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, as well as YouTube under Google, issued a statement disagreeing with the ruling and affirming its intention to pursue legal options, including appeals. Meta argued that the plaintiff's mental health issues were complex and could not be blamed on a single application. A Google spokesperson stated that the ruling distorted the facts about YouTube, which is a responsibly built video streaming platform and more like television than social media.
This ruling comes after a New Mexico jury ruled on Tuesday (March 24) that Meta violated the state's consumer protection law by misleading users about the platform's safety and allowing child exploitation and sexual abusers access to the platform. The court also ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil damages. The trial included internal documents revealing that executives were aware of the problems but prioritized profit over safety, as well as testimony from former employees and experts. This marks the first time the state has successfully sued Meta over child safety concerns.
Why is this considered a "turning point"? Previously, technology companies were often protected by laws such as Section 230 in the US, which stated that platforms were not responsible for user-posted content. However, this ruling breaks with that principle by not focusing directly on content, but rather on product design, which is considered the direct responsibility of the company. This includes elements such as content recommendation algorithms, infinite scrolling systems, and autoplay, thus circumventing the previous legal protections of Section 230.
Legal experts and critics agree that this "social media addiction" case marks a turning point, dubbed the "Big Tobacco" period, for giant tech companies. That is, the allegations against these Big Tech companies are similar to those of cigarette manufacturers who know that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive. Court evidence presented by prosecutors shows that the tech companies had internal documents indicating that young customers were at risk of addiction, yet they continued to use this strategy to maintain their user base.
Although cigarettes still exist, past legal battles resulted in a ban on advertising targeting children and led to a more than 50% reduction in smoking rates in the United States between 1998 and 2019.
A technology policy expert from Cornell University said the Los Angeles case is significant as a precedent that could set a precedent for thousands of other pending cases. And, of course, a ruling like this could pave the way for numerous subsequent lawsuits from victims and school districts across the United States, similar to what happened in past lawsuits against tobacco companies, potentially leading to massive settlements.
In the future, we may see structural changes, such as the elimination of infinite scrolling in some countries, or stricter automatic time limits for youth. Platforms may be forced to remove obsessive-inducing features, but whether it will go so far as to display on-screen warnings before accessing the platform, similar to the health warnings on cigarette packaging, remains to be seen.
Because let's not forget that these measures will impact the core of all platforms: engagement. When users spend less time in front of their screens, the amount of ad space available decreases. The less we scroll through our feeds, the less the algorithms understand our interests, making targeted advertising more difficult. This results in a decrease in company valuation, as investors measure the success of Big Tech companies primarily by the number of active users and the time spent on their platforms. That's why these platforms often choose designs that entice us to stay engaged; because if they can keep us entertained and get us to put our phones down, it means financial failure for them. Implement strict legal controls.
Meanwhile, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, key proponents of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), used the opportunity to urge Congress to expedite the passage of legislation to establish comprehensive online safety standards. The primary goal is to hold platforms accountable for monitoring and preventing harm to youth, such as depression, harassment, and exploitation. They also noted that this ruling coincides with the tobacco industry case, which demonstrated companies were aware of the dangers but chose to pursue profits, thus necessitating legislation to enforce these standards without relying solely on court orders.
However, despite passing the Senate overwhelmingly in the past, this legislation has frequently stalled in the House of Representatives due to concerns regarding freedom of expression (First Amendment) and content censorship. Major technology companies have invested heavily in opposing legislation that could impact their business models and argue that mandatory age verification or content restrictions could violate privacy and the right to access information.
However, losing this case demonstrates that the series of court defeats suffered by these giant tech companies is a sign that the era of Big Tech's absolute and unaccountable power is coming to an end.