Meta contests US jury ruling in teen social media addiction lawsuit
In a historic social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has appealed the verdict, contesting the jury’s finding that the business created its platforms to entice young people without regard for their health. On Tuesday, legal representatives for Meta submitted a notice of appeal in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The solicitors will present their arguments concerning the appeal in forthcoming court submissions. The case revolved around a 20-year-old woman who reported developing an addiction to social media during her childhood, asserting that this addiction exacerbated her mental health challenges. The jury determined that the negligence exhibited by both Meta and YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, played a significant role in inflicting harm on the young woman, referred to in court solely by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.
The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, stated on Friday that the legal team anticipates the appellate court will “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.” A notice of appeal initiates what may become an extended procedure. A Meta spokesperson issued a statement on Friday, reiterating their position from March when the jury delivered its verdict, asserting that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, stated on Friday that YouTube intends to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.” Meta and Google have both submitted post-trial motions for judgement notwithstanding the verdict, a standard procedure employed by defence attorneys seeking to have the judge overturn the jury’s decision, as well as for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, rejected those motions in early June.
Tech companies such as Meta and YouTube enjoy immunity from legal liability concerning content uploaded by third parties, as stipulated by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To circumvent those protections, the plaintiffs concentrated on the design characteristics of the platforms, such as “infinite scroll,” which refers to the perpetual nature of feeds, and autoplay functions. Concerns regarding the encroachment into content-related territory were a focal point of numerous objections raised by the defendants during the five-week trial. The verdict in this case emerged amidst a period of legal challenges for Meta. A jury in New Mexico delivered a verdict concluding that Meta’s platforms adversely affect children’s mental health and safety, occurring just one day prior to the California jury’s decision. The New Mexico jury, aligning with state prosecutors who initiated the case, determined a penalty of $375 million.
Meta has expressed its disagreement with the verdict and has announced plans to appeal in that case. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson stated at the time of the verdicts and reiterated on Friday. Kaley’s case represented a pioneering lawsuit, and the verdict has the potential to shape the outcomes of numerous similar lawsuits that allege social media companies have intentionally inflicted harm. TikTok and the parent company of Snapchat, Snap Inc., were initially included as defendants in the case; however, both reached settlements for undisclosed amounts prior to the commencement of the trial.
