TL;DR: In a first-of-its-kind verdict, a jury found Meta and Google negligent for how they design their platforms, ruling that they harmed a young child. With over 2,000 similar suits pending, the ruling is a preview of a future where social media platforms could be forced to work very differently than they do today. What happened: Yesterday, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in the design of their platforms—ruling that it was a substantial factor in causing harm to 20-year-old “Kaley G.M.,” who accused Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok of fueling her depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. (Snap and TikTok settled before the trial.) The plaintiff was awarded $6 million, with Meta shouldering 70% of the liability. Both companies said they disagreed with the verdict and plan to appeal. Until now, tech companies have used Section 230, the 1996 law that treats platforms as neutral hosts rather than publishers of content, as a liability shield. But in a key pretrial ruling, the judge said it didn't apply here because the case targeted app design—features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations—and not user content. An attorney for the broader litigation (which includes 2,000-plus plaintiffs) called yesterday’s ruling “a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived.” Intentional scroll: Evidence presented in court showed Meta knew millions of children under 13 were on Instagram—and a 2018 strategy doc urged the company to “bring them in as tweens.” Kaley testified that she started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9, and that she felt compelled to stay on constantly, afraid she’d “miss out on something.” Both companies pushed back against the accusation that their apps intentionally hooked young users—Meta blamed other factors for Kaley’s struggles, and Google argued YouTube was “a responsibly built streaming platform.” The stakes: With over 2,000 similar suits pending, the damages could stack up fast—punitive awards in this case considered the companies’ net worth, which the judge said was equal to each company’s total stockholders equity ($217 billion for Meta, $415 billion for Google). If other juries follow suit, the industry could face billions in liability—reason enough to rethink how they design for young users. (Possible changes could include banning autoplay and push notifications for minors, or even for all users). Not over till it’s over: Section 230 could still play a major role on appeal. Some experts argue the LA court drew too sharp a line between platform design and third-party content, and that Section 230 should have been considered more directly in the first place. “When plaintiffs claim they are ‘addicted’ to social media, what exactly are they addicted to?” Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told Tech Brew over email. “The answer is third-party content, which is why Section 230 should be squarely implicated.” Appellate courts could still reduce the damages owed or wipe the verdict, though the 2,000-plus pending suits would remain very much alive. Bottom line: With all these pushes for design changes and so many pending lawsuits, whether these social media platforms look different in a year is anyone’s guess. This trial provides just “one datapoint about potential liability,” Goldman said. “Having said that, regulators and plaintiffs around the globe are surely going to feel emboldened by the jury verdict.” The shift may already be underway: A day before the LA outcome, a separate New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million under consumer protection laws for failing to protect minors. The state’s attorney general wasted no time demanding “real age verification, changes to the algorithm,” and “that they do business differently in New Mexico.” —WK | 
Signal —SM
