Google/Meta court case

[Harry Bloomfield]

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial

A woman has been awarded $3m in a verdict that could have implications for hundreds of other cases in the US.

www.bbc.co.uk

Awarded $3M because she had become addicted to social media, from the age of three.

Parents suggest it wasn't their fault. Really, who bought her the gadgets, and allowed her to spend so much time on it?

 

[Mottie]

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial

A woman has been awarded $3m in a verdict that could have implications for hundreds of other cases in the US.

www.bbc.co.uk

Awarded $3 because she had become addicted to social media, from the age of three.

Parents suggest it wasn't their fault. Really, who bought her the gadgets, and allowed her to spend so much time on it?

Three dollars? That’s not much is it?

 

[Odds]

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

Al Jazeera

Meanwhile...

 

[Odds]

The House of Lords has backed an Australian-style social media ban for under-16s. Peers, in a vote of 266 to 141, rejected Keir Starmer’s proposals for a public consultation to decide whether a ban should be introduced. The Conservative former minister Lord Nash said the vote sent an “unambiguous message” to Starmer’s government.

“Tonight the House of Lords sent for the second time an unambiguous message to the government: hollow promises and half-measures are not enough,” Nash said in a statement.

 

[motorbiking]

I can't see it myself..

"Jurors found that Kaley should receive $3m in compensatory damages and an additional $3m punitive damages, because they determined Meta and Google "acted with malice, oppression, or fraud" in the way the companies operated their platforms."

Knowing google they will keep this tied up for years.

 

[noseall]

I can't see it myself..

You can't see the addiction or the way social media companies prey upon it?

 

[motorbiking]

You can't see the addiction or the way social media companies prey upon it?

I don't dispute their model is to drive engagement to earn revenue. Malice, oppression or fraud is a stretch - IMO

 

[blup]

These cases are litigated for ever and then the class action has to be brought. Juries had a lot of power in US civil cases.

 

[noseall]

Malice, oppression or fraud

Tip of the iceberg. Those are the ones they could use in law. I expect the SM companies use every evil devious trick in the book, to snare in children.

Greedy scum.

 

[Brigadier]

Knowing google they will keep this tied up for years.

"Google".

This is the problem.

Unless "Google" has become sentient and is pulling its own strings, the business operating systems and culture come from the executives.

Start holding them personally to account for their decisions, and things will change.

I doubt that will happen any time soon though : there's more money in consequence - free actions.

 

[motorbiking]

"Google".

This is the problem.

Unless "Google" has become sentient and is pulling its own strings, the business operating systems and culture come from the executives.

Start holding them personally to account for their decisions, and things will change.

I doubt that will happen any time soon though : there's more money in consequence - free actions.

My “knowing Google” comment is based on litigation experience not casual understanding of the company.

 

[motorbiking]

Tip of the iceberg. Those are the ones they could use in law. I expect the SM companies use every evil devious trick in the book, to snare in children.

Greedy scum.

Diynot would also be keen to drive engagement to secure ad-sense it’s not that different.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I am SO glad we didn't have this tech when I was young (70s/80s).

 

[noseall]

"Google".

This is the problem.

Unless "Google" has become sentient and is pulling its own strings, the business operating systems and culture come from the executives.

Start holding them personally to account for their decisions, and things will change.

I doubt that will happen any time soon though : there's more money in consequence - free actions.

Let's face it, social media companies have had an easy ride until now. There has been little regulatory accountability because governments have been slow to catch up, or just too focussed on the (look the other way) money.

Greedy scum.

 

[blup]

There’s got to be a balance between parental and corporate responsibility. If meta are mining young people’s personal information and targeting them for ad revenue they have the same responsibility as food manufacturers who produce highly processed foods.