Meta and Google have hit a troubling point in their history, similar to what tobacco companies faced long ago, as they experienced two significant legal losses this week. Experts suggest that these challenges are just the tip of the iceberg.
This week, a jury in Los Angeles found that both Google and Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, were responsible for a 20-year-old woman’s social media addiction, ultimately ordering them to pay $6 million in damages.
In a separate case, a jury in New Mexico concluded that Meta failed to protect children from harmful content, resulting in a fine of $375 million. For those criticizing Big Tech, this verdict indicates a shift reminiscent of the legal backlash against tobacco firms decades ago.
Jess Mears, a law professor at the University of Akron, mentioned that this unexpected ruling marks a “new era of Internet litigation,” suggesting that the legal protections previously afforded to tech companies under Section 230 may not be as foolproof as they once seemed.
She noted that plaintiffs are increasingly framing their cases as product liability to circumvent the protections usually granted by Section 230. More importantly, these decisions highlight that significant damages could now be on the table for claims against online services.
Although Google and Meta plan to contest the rulings, they face a slew of lawsuits across both federal and state courts, all alleging similar claims. Essentially, these lawsuits argue that the companies intentionally designed their platforms to keep children engaged, which has contributed to a mental health crisis.
A particularly noteworthy case is set to start in June in California, where school districts will argue that social media platforms like Meta and Google are creating a public nuisance by disrupting education and putting a strain on local resources.
Other platforms, like Snap and TikTok, are also implicated, although they reached a settlement in the KGM lawsuit before it went to trial.
Lexi Hussam, an attorney representing the school districts, expressed optimism about the rulings, saying they provide valuable momentum moving forward. She emphasized that juries may find the evidence compelling, especially documents showing that these companies knew their products were harmful and inherently addictive.
The school district is not only pursuing monetary compensation but also seeking injunctive relief that could compel these social media companies to modify features deemed addictive, like infinite scrolling and auto-playing videos.
There are plans for a coalition of state attorneys general to bring additional claims regarding social media addiction to court in August. Meanwhile, Los Angeles courts will hear more lawsuits later this year that mirror the issues raised in the KGM case.
Clay Calvert from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out that the recent rulings may help gauge the potential value of such lawsuits and could lead to a surge of similar legal actions.
While he noted that comparing the situation to Big Tobacco isn’t perfect, he acknowledged that plaintiffs’ attorneys are employing comparable strategies, essentially recognizing a major opportunity for legal claims.
If these tech companies continue to face disappointing outcomes in court, Calvert anticipates that they may choose to settle ongoing lawsuits or alter app functionalities to avoid further legal complications.
He remarked that if judgments keep coming down against them, the social media companies might decide to change how they operate, especially concerning minors, to sidestep liability.
“In the long run, these financial penalties might become too burdensome,” Calvert added.
Gregory Dickinson, a law professor at the University of Nebraska, cautioned against reading too much into these rulings as indications that Section 230 is ineffective or that Meta and Google are wholly responsible. Instead, they can provide a clearer path for plaintiffs to frame cases around social media damages as standard product liability and consumer protection issues.
It remains uncertain what specific changes may come in response to these liability threats, and whether these will be broad app-wide adjustments or more tailored changes for individual users, Dickinson concluded.
