California Jury Rules Against Google and Meta

Once upon a time, Google had a motto: “Don’t be evil.” However, after a big organizational shake-up in 2015, it shifted to “doing the right thing.” This week, a California jury suggested that neither motto really applied anymore.

In a notable verdict, the jury found that both Google and Meta purposefully created their social media platforms to addict young users, including a plaintiff referred to as Kaylee, or KGM. During the trial, evidence was presented showing how these companies targeted younger audiences to enhance their social media and YouTube addiction. The jury awarded Kaylee $3 million in damages, with 70% coming from Meta and 30% from Google, and later added another $3 million in punitive damages.

For corporations valued in the billions, these sums might seem insignificant. Yet, the decision is like a starting signal for attorneys representing plaintiffs. Already, numerous lawsuits have been initiated against social media entities, and this is likely just the beginning, especially following recent out-of-court settlements with companies like TikTok and Snap.

On another front, the New Mexico Attorney General secured a $375 million ruling against Meta and has filed a similar lawsuit under state consumer protection laws.

However, it might take a long time for any checks to be written by these companies. The California case is complicated, with a multitude of appellate issues that could delay any resolutions for years.

Interestingly, the case is not seen as the strongest one out there. Kaylee, a 17-year-old from California, began using social media at just six. She faced challenges during her childhood, including family issues and bullying at school, which led to depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphic disorder. Her social media use was, well, excessive—she was often online all day.

Meta argues that users under 13 aren’t allowed on its platform, and YouTube has options like YouTube Kids for younger audiences. Still, Kaylee managed to create multiple accounts to boost her likes and interactions.

This trial has shown just how tangled these cases can get, especially when trying to determine which factors truly contributed to Kaylee’s difficult upbringing. It pushed the boundaries of how we view factual and legal causation.

As someone who’s been teaching tort law for over 30 years, I think the causation in this situation is quite debatable. In past tobacco lawsuits, for instance, there were extensive debates over other potential cancer causes. This case, however, is fairly uncomplicated compared to discussions of liability regarding mental health disorders. Kids are bombarded with influences from so many directions. And many, like Kaylee, come from homes with their own sets of challenges.

Both companies previously claimed protection under Section 230 of the Communications Act. However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have found creative legal angles to challenge this immunity, asserting that they’re not suing over content per se but rather the design of social media products themselves.

This could be seen as clever, but it might also backfire in front of some judges. Historically, product liability laws have been employed to bypass various legal limitations, like those faced by gun manufacturers. Section 230 was meant to protect internet platforms hosting third-party content. Here, lawyers are claiming immunity for the posted content but challenging the very structure of the systems themselves.

The jury, in finding negligence, particularly emphasized that the site design seemed intentionally aimed at fostering a compulsion for continuous use while also promoting “harmful and depressing content.” Yet, distinguishing between targeted marketing and general outreach remains a bit murky.

It’s unclear what kind of warnings these platforms should offer beyond what they’ve already stated, and, more crucially, whether those warnings would even have an impact. Would Kaylee have thought twice if she received a warning that social media could be addictive and harmful? Her mother had already attempted to limit her usage.

What’s evident is that social media captivates users—both kids and adults—offering an unparalleled opportunity to create, connect, and engage with a broad range of people and content. The real question is whether this pull is a deliberate attempt to draw minors in, or simply the result of a product that appeals broadly.

Looking ahead, it’s safe to say there will be many more cases like this. Following the verdict, congratulations flooded in for the plaintiffs’ attorneys on social media. These legal battles will press on, despite lingering uncertainties about liability.

Ultimately, it seems the courts will have the final say on whether these social media entities indeed “do the right thing” regarding their responsibilities.