Judge Denies Meta and Google's Bid for New Trial in Youth Social Media Case
A California judge denied Meta and Google's requests for a new trial after a jury found their platforms liable for youth addiction. The lawsuit cited harmful design features, not user content. The companies, who face $6 million in damages, plan to appeal, arguing federal law protects them.
Key points
- A California judge denied Meta and Google's motions for a new trial in a youth social media addiction lawsuit.
- A jury previously found the companies negligent for harmful platform design, imposing $6 million in damages.
- The judge ruled Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not shield companies from liability over design choices.
- Meta and Google argue their platforms' designs are protected by Section 230 and the First Amendment, and plan to appeal.
- The lawsuit focused on platform design features contributing to addiction, irrespective of user-generated content.
A California state court judge has rejected motions by Meta Platforms and Google's YouTube seeking a new trial following a jury verdict that held them liable for designing social media platforms detrimental to young users. The ruling, made by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, addresses a lawsuit filed by an individual claiming addiction to Instagram and YouTube due to their attention-grabbing features.
The jury had determined the companies were negligent and awarded $6 million in damages. Central to the judge's decision was her assertion that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law often protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content, does not apply to the companies' design choices. Judge Kuhl emphasized that the jury was instructed to disregard content and focus solely on design elements, finding substantial evidence of harm caused by these features.
Meta and Google had contended that Section 230 and the First Amendment shield them from such claims. A Meta spokesperson stated the company disagrees with the ruling and anticipates it will be overturned on appeal. The companies' legal strategy appears to hinge on challenging the interpretation of federal protections regarding platform design.
Sources
The WireByte editorial team synthesises technology news from multiple primary sources, verifies the facts, and links every source. Articles are produced with AI assistance and reviewed under our editorial policy.