Today The selection of the jury that will judge Meta, TikTok and YouTube begins in Los Angeles due to childhood addiction to social networks. It is the first time that these technological giants have to defend their business model in court for damages to minors.
Why is it important. This is not just another case of inappropriate content or poor moderation. This lawsuit directly attacks the design of the platforms: scroll infinite, autoplay, notifications push and algorithms that maximize screen time.
If the plaintiffs win, a precedent is set that could be devastating for the entire industry.
The facts. The plaintiff is a 19-year-old girl identified as KGM. She claims to have developed an addiction to networks since she was a teenager. He maintains that the design of these applications was what fueled his depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. Meta, TikTok and YouTube have denied these accusations and argue that they have invested in security tools.
During the six weeks of the trial, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, and Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, will testify. Snap, also initially accused, reached an out-of-court settlement last week for an amount not publicly disclosed.
Between the lines. The plaintiffs’ key argument avoids the traditional protection of technology companies: the famous Section 230which exempts them from responsibility for the content uploaded by users. But here the question is not what is published, but rather how the experience was designed to engage minors.
The lawsuit openly compares it to slot machines and the tobacco industry: “Defendants deliberately embedded in their products a series of features designed to maximize the engagement youth and increase advertising revenue.
The threat. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more than 3,000 additional lawsuits in California and 2,000 federal cases pending against these same companies. Several will go to trial this year. The parallels with the trials against tobacco companies in the 90s They are clear and that ended in an agreement of 206,000 million dollars spread over 25 years.
A favorable verdict for the plaintiffs would not only cost them billions but would force them to redesign their products practically from scratch, eliminating the addictive mechanics that sustain their spectacular usage figures and therefore their advertising models.
The context. Global regulatory pressure has increased greatly in recent years:
- Australia banned social media for those under 16 in December.
- France is studying doing the same with those under 15.
- Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Egypt are currently evaluating similar measures.
According to a recent survey by Wall Street Journal71% of Americans would support banning most social networks for those under 16 years of age.
Yes, but. The technological they don’t sit idly by:
- Meta, TikTok and YouTube have launched a public relations offensive by organizing workshops for parents in schools and promoting parental controls.
- Meta has hired the same lawyers who defended McKesson in the opioid scandal.
- And TikTok has signed those who represented Activision Blizzard in Previous Lawsuits About Video Game Addiction.
At stake. If KGM wins, Section 230 will cease to be the impenetrable shield it has been until now, since it questions how the applications are made, not the content that is uploaded to them. Hopefully this case will end up in the Supreme Court, whatever the verdict.
The next six weeks will determine if the scroll infinite and other common practices of these networks have their days numbered, or if there are engagement for a while.
Featured image | Solen Feyissa
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings