A jury in LA has delivered a damning verdict for two of the world's most popular digital platforms, Instagram and YouTube. It ruled those apps are addictive, and deliberately engineered that way – and that its owners have been negligent in their safeguarding of the children who have used them. It's a sombre moment for Silicon Valley and the implications are global.
The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case. She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.
Both companies intend to appeal, with Meta maintaining a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis. Google, meanwhile, says YouTube is not a social network. But for now, the ruling means 'the era of impunity is over' according to Dr. Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University. It is hard to overstate what a game-changing moment this court verdict is for social media.
Whatever happens next, and there will undoubtedly be appeals and further legal processes, this is going to redefine the landscape. It could even be the beginning of the end of the social media era as we know it.
The world's doomscrollers might not have been shocked by the verdict but I think the tech companies were. Meta and Google racked up eye-watering legal fees defending this. This case, and others like it, are clearly of huge significance to them.
The other two companies in the trial – TikTok and Snap, the owner of Snapchat – settled before it went to court. There were mutterings in the tech sphere they couldn't afford the fight. I had been invited to slick briefings about all the tools social networks offer (mainly to parents) to protect kids. But ultimately the court ruled their measures were not enough.
Arturo Bejar, who used to work at Instagram, said he warned Mark Zuckerberg of the dangers it posed to children several years ago. 'It changed from a product you used to a product that uses you,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday. Meta has denied his claims.
Some experts have described the verdict as big tech's 'big tobacco' moment, and we know how that worked out - although it didn't stop people smoking altogether. Could there be health warnings on screens? Restricted advertising and sponsorship opportunities? The tech companies are currently legally protected in the US by a clause known as Section 230, which shields them from liability for the content that is published on them. Other types of media companies do not have this benefit. It is often said the tech industry couldn't survive without it.
But skepticism over the shield may be growing, with the Senate Commerce Committee having held a hearing to discuss it. The tech leaders enjoy a generally cosy relationship with US politicians but have yet to receive widespread support in their defense as they face more mounting legal challenges. The engagement models of these platforms fundamentally depend on keeping users hooked through features that foster addiction. The success of big platforms lies in their footfall, keeping large numbers of people online to maximize potential ad revenue. However, today's children are tomorrow's adults, and the ideal scenario for the tech companies is to convert them into lifelong, established users.
As more cases are poised to emerge, Kaley's court victory serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing evolution in how society perceives the risks and responsibilities of social media use, particularly among vulnerable populations. This landmark verdict signals a profound shift in the conversation around the design choices of these platforms and the real legal consequences they may entail.
The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case. She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.
Both companies intend to appeal, with Meta maintaining a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis. Google, meanwhile, says YouTube is not a social network. But for now, the ruling means 'the era of impunity is over' according to Dr. Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University. It is hard to overstate what a game-changing moment this court verdict is for social media.
Whatever happens next, and there will undoubtedly be appeals and further legal processes, this is going to redefine the landscape. It could even be the beginning of the end of the social media era as we know it.
The world's doomscrollers might not have been shocked by the verdict but I think the tech companies were. Meta and Google racked up eye-watering legal fees defending this. This case, and others like it, are clearly of huge significance to them.
The other two companies in the trial – TikTok and Snap, the owner of Snapchat – settled before it went to court. There were mutterings in the tech sphere they couldn't afford the fight. I had been invited to slick briefings about all the tools social networks offer (mainly to parents) to protect kids. But ultimately the court ruled their measures were not enough.
Arturo Bejar, who used to work at Instagram, said he warned Mark Zuckerberg of the dangers it posed to children several years ago. 'It changed from a product you used to a product that uses you,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday. Meta has denied his claims.
Some experts have described the verdict as big tech's 'big tobacco' moment, and we know how that worked out - although it didn't stop people smoking altogether. Could there be health warnings on screens? Restricted advertising and sponsorship opportunities? The tech companies are currently legally protected in the US by a clause known as Section 230, which shields them from liability for the content that is published on them. Other types of media companies do not have this benefit. It is often said the tech industry couldn't survive without it.
But skepticism over the shield may be growing, with the Senate Commerce Committee having held a hearing to discuss it. The tech leaders enjoy a generally cosy relationship with US politicians but have yet to receive widespread support in their defense as they face more mounting legal challenges. The engagement models of these platforms fundamentally depend on keeping users hooked through features that foster addiction. The success of big platforms lies in their footfall, keeping large numbers of people online to maximize potential ad revenue. However, today's children are tomorrow's adults, and the ideal scenario for the tech companies is to convert them into lifelong, established users.
As more cases are poised to emerge, Kaley's court victory serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing evolution in how society perceives the risks and responsibilities of social media use, particularly among vulnerable populations. This landmark verdict signals a profound shift in the conversation around the design choices of these platforms and the real legal consequences they may entail.
