Alarm bells for Meta and YouTube: Court found addiction claims justified

In the social media addiction case held in Los Angeles and closely followed by the technology industry, the jury ruled that Meta and YouTube were negligent. The court ruled for a total compensation of $6 million in favor of the plaintiff, who claimed that he was harmed as a child due to the “addictive features” of these platforms. The 20-year-old woman who filed the lawsuit and is referred to as “KGM” in court documents claimed that she was exposed to the negative effects of services offered by Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap during her childhood. TikTok and Snap had reached a compromise before the lawsuit began. Despite this, Meta and YouTube did not accept responsibility during the trial and continued their defense.

According to the jury verdict, Meta must pay 70 percent of the $3 million compensatory damages and YouTube must pay the remaining part. In addition, the jury also imposed an additional liability of $3 million in punitive damages on the companies. In the statements made by Meta and Google, it was stated that they did not agree with the decision and that an appeal would be filed. While the Meta spokesperson stated that they thought the decision was wrong, Google spokesman José Castañeda argued that YouTube is not a social media platform, but a responsibly developed broadcast platform. Despite this, the jury attributed responsibility by taking into account the platforms’ design choices.

The design of meta platforms and YouTube became a matter of debate

The litigation process, which lasted for weeks, stood out as an important example of the effects of social media companies, especially on child users. The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that the algorithms and notification systems developed by companies to increase user interaction were designed to create addiction. In addition, internal company documents and statements of managers were also presented to the jury. The plaintiff claimed that these documents revealed that companies prioritized profitability over user health. Despite this, Meta managers opposed the definition of social media as “addiction” and stated that the platforms were developed with the aim of beneficial use.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also testified at the hearing and said that they aimed for Instagram to be a “useful” service for users. However, the plaintiff claimed that the defenses that the statements made in the past were distorted did not reflect the truth. Joseph VanZandt, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, emphasized that the jury members made their decision by examining the statements of company executives and internal correspondence. This situation seems to be capable of setting a precedent for similar cases. Although the companies objected to the decision, the process brought the debates about the responsibility of social media platforms back to the agenda.

On the other hand, this decision was recorded as the second negative judgment that Meta received in a short time. In another case heard the day before in New Mexico, the company was sentenced to pay a fine of $375 million due to deficiencies in child safety. Meta announced that it would appeal this decision. In addition to all these, opinions that technology companies’ policies, especially to protect young users, should be more strictly monitored are gaining ground.