A jury in Los Angeles has delivered a groundbreaking verdict against two of the world's most dominant digital platforms, Instagram and YouTube, ruling them to be addictive and deliberately engineered as such, while their owners were negligent in safeguarding children. The tech giants Meta and Google have been ordered to pay $6 million in damages to a young woman referred to as Kaley, who claimed the platforms led her to develop body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts.
Both companies have announced their intention to appeal. Meta maintains that a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis, while Google argues that YouTube is not a social network. The court, however, found the protective measures offered by the platforms to be insufficient. Former Instagram employee Arturo Bejar testified that he had warned Mark Zuckerberg years ago about the dangers to children, an allegation Meta has denied.
Legal experts have likened the verdict to Big Tech's "big tobacco" moment, potentially heralding health warnings on screens, restricted advertising, and increased liability for platform design. In the US, tech companies are currently shielded by Section 230, which protects them from liability for user-generated content, but skepticism is growing, with the Senate Commerce Committee holding hearings on the matter. The cozy relationship between tech leaders and the US political establishment, including former President Donald Trump, has not prevented this legal challenge.
The ruling could trigger a global shift in social media regulation. Australia has already blocked under-16s from major platforms, and the UK and other nations are considering similar bans. This threatens the core business model of these platforms, which relies on maximizing user engagement through features like endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and auto-play to serve targeted advertisements. In several territories, including the UK, children are already excluded from this advertising machinery due to regulatory intervention, but platforms aim to cultivate them as future adult users.
Kaley's court victory marks the second defeat for Big Tech in a series of similar lawsuits scheduled for trial in the US this year. Dr. Rob Nicholls of the University of Sydney stated that this verdict signals a shift in how courts view platform design as carrying real legal and social consequences, opening the door to broader challenges against technology systems engineered at the expense of user wellbeing. While UK politicians remain divided on banning platforms for minors, the verdict adds weight to regulatory arguments, with some bereaved parents, like Ellen Roome, campaigning for immediate action following tragedies linked to online challenges.
Source: www.bbc.com