\n<\/p>\n
Two of America’s biggest tech companies suffered stunning defeats in court this week in what could prove to be a seismic shift in how social media operates amid a new landscape of legal risk.<\/p>\n
Both Meta and Google vowed to appeal the verdict handed down by civil juries in Los Angeles County and Santa Fe, NM, dismissing the loss as a bit of bad luck. But attorney Mark Lanier underlined the surprise victory in L.A. for his client \u2014 who alleged that Instagram and YouTube were designed to be addictive to young users \u2014 as nothing less than a proverbial victory. <\/p>\n
“You’ve seen pictures of Atlas with the world on his shoulders \u2013 it’s like the weight has been put aside,” Lanier said. “It’s a noble moment.” <\/p>\n
Some experts believed that the test case would be successful. Very few people still thought that it would be a great start for the tech titans this spring. <\/p>\n
But things began to tilt on Feb. 27, the day after 20-year-old plaintiff Kelly GM’s testimony in Los Angeles, when a Delaware court ruled that insurers were not prepared to defend Instagram’s parent company Meta in her lawsuit and thousands of related cases claiming that social media apps harm children.<\/p>\n
Then, on Tuesday, a New Mexico panel awarded $375 million in damages against Meta for child molestation. Less than 24 hours later, 12 Angelenos delivered $6 million to Cali GM<\/p>\n
Now, some predict that the set of decisions could change the fortunes of social media and rewrite the future of American tort law. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis is what we were all hoping for,\u201d said Jonathan Haidt<\/a>A social psychologist and author of “The Anxious Generation”. “If we can win on social media, I think humanity has a chance.” <\/p>\n While Jeremiah’s name is on the rise among millennials and Gen<\/p>\n \u201cThe world is changing its mind about this,\u201d Haidt said. \u201cWhen these decisions are coming, they are going to take it even further.\u201d <\/p>\n Many legal experts agreed. <\/p>\n Attorney Mark Lanier and his team arrived at Los Angeles County Superior Court during a recent civil trial regarding his client’s alleged social media addiction.<\/p>\n (Kayla Bartkowski\/Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n \u201cThe broad signal to the market is that the shield is weakening,\u201d said peter jackson<\/a>A privacy and cybersecurity attorney in Los Angeles. \u201cSeeing the richest and largest companies unable to deal with litigation like this expands the pool of plaintiff lawyers who will be willing to file similar cases.\u201d<\/p>\n A powerful 1996 law called Section 230 has long protected internet platforms from most civil liability. The LA case tested the argument that injuries arose not from the content hosted by the apps but from design functions designed to maximize engagement \u2013 \u200b\u200beven if, as Cali GM alleged, those designs were known to pose risks to children.<\/p>\n This week’s victory could lead to a flood of new lawsuits, even if the rulings are overturned in appellate courts, as the companies, their supporters and many First Amendment experts expect. <\/p>\n Delaware’s decision is different. Unless it is overturned, which is not widely predicted, the cost of defending those lawsuits now falls entirely on Meta. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is going to fundamentally change engagement on social media,\u201d the insurance defense attorney said. michael coffee<\/a>. “The insurance industry is going to say, ‘We’re not paying for this.’ \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t be making billions and trying to pass the cost of bad products onto insurance companies.\u201d <\/p>\n He and others said algorithms that expose users to harmful content or keep them stuck on platforms could expose apps to costly litigation. Meta and Google each had several partners from white-shoe firms on the defense table every day for eight weeks in Los Angeles, lawyers who could command thousands of dollars per billable hour. <\/p>\n Coffey said of the decision, “Maybe the numbers were manageable today, but the precedent is not.” \u201cIt’s really going to change a lot in this algorithm-driven business model.\u201d <\/p>\n The insurance law expert predicted that more defensive default settings, stricter age verification, more stringent parental controls and new alerts to steer users away from platforms will all flow from the courtroom. <\/p>\n Other observers warned of potentially devastating consequences for Meta and other Silicon Valley giants in court.<\/p>\n “If you look at a $3 million loss, it’s not that much for Meta or Google, but 2,000 or 3,000 cases at a time, it’s an existential crisis,” said Ari Kohn, chief counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. <\/p>\n Experts said the response from app designers could be swift and dramatic: Think universal TikTok-style censorship and aughts-era chronological scrolling. <\/p>\n “It could be that social media becomes completely useless,” Cohn said. <\/p>\n Others see the sea change less as a legal tsunami than a tidal cultural shift \u2014 one jurors in New Mexico and California are riding, not talking, into existence. <\/p>\n Many young users now say they spend too much time on apps. Nearly half of teens say social media is bad for people their age, according to a study conducted last spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Studies show that parents are even more convinced. <\/p>\n Moms like state Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), author of California’s 2022 social media age restriction bill, agreed that society has reached a tipping point.<\/p>\n “I have a 9-year-old and a 5-year-old, so I’m living and breathing it,” she said of the fight to keep kids off the apps. \u201cIt’s the No. 1 thing parents talk to me about at pick-up and drop-off and soccer practice. It’s <\/i> thing.” <\/p>\n Wicks said he worked with companies on the 2022 bill, but after its passage he had to go to war to stop it. With age-verification tied up in court, she and other parent-lawmakers from both parties have banded together to push a set of stronger laws this year.<\/p>\n Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who was called to testify in both the L.A. and New Mexico trials, and his colleagues have long argued that there is no practical mechanism to screen out millions of existing underage users or prevent new grade-schoolers from creating accounts. <\/p>\n Jurors found those claims unsubstantiated. <\/p>\n \u201cThey had some testimony \u2014 they changed it back and forth,\u201d said Victoria, one of 10 jurors who voted for liability in the case, who asked to be identified only by her first name for privacy reasons. “It didn’t go well with us.” <\/p>\n On Friday, the nation’s second-largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, announced<\/a> It filed a lawsuit against Meta, TikTok, Snap and Google, as well as Discord, Roblox and <\/p>\n The lawsuit joins hundreds of other lawsuits already filed in federal court for the Northern District of California. The first bellwether there is scheduled to open in Oakland this summer. <\/p>\n Where school districts go, survivors of school shootings may soon follow. <\/p>\n