The Gryphon Gazette

By: Adi G. ’27

In the past, we have seen many instances of large social media companies winning court cases and avoiding accountability for the harm that their platforms cause. While there are many positive aspects of social media, including community-building, networking, and fostering a sense of connection, it is also important to acknowledge the negative effects that include, but are not limited to, mental health issues, cyberbullying, and the ease with which misinformation can be spread. This March, we saw a landmark court case where a Los Angeles jury found Google and Meta to be negligent in the design of Instagram and YouTube. The court ruled that their platforms were deliberately built to be addictive and that company executives knew this while failing to protect young users.

In this case, the plaintiff was a young woman, identified by her initials as KGM. KGM downloaded YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and claimed this caused her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and thoughts of self-harm. She was later diagnosed with all four of these conditions. During the seven-week trial, KGM’s lawyers presented internal Meta documents showing that company executives were fully aware their platforms were attracting underage users: one memo noted that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to return to Instagram compared to competing apps, and another stated, “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” Mark Zuckerberg was called in to testify, and he stated that Meta knew that 10 to 12-year-olds made up a significant portion of their user population, but maintained that Meta was doing all it could to ensure their safety. After more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, the jury found Meta 70% responsible for KGM’s harm and YouTube 30%, awarding $6 million in total damages.

For decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law passed in 1996, had generally protected social media companies from these kinds of court cases. Specifically, the law shields websites, platforms, and users from lawsuits regarding user-posted information. One example of this law coming into play with social media companies occurred in 2020, when Kristin Bride found her son, Carson, had committed suicide after receiving hundreds of hateful messages on Yolo. Another example includes a teenager groomed by his teacher through Snapchat’s disappearing-message feature, who saw his case thrown out after a federal court ruled Snap immune from liability. Both of these times, despite the harm occurring through the social media company’s platform, Section 230 protected these companies from bearing the responsibility, due to these being content-related cases rather than issues caused directly by the app or algorithm. This case is different. Rather than targeting content posted by users, which Section 230 protects, KGM’s lawyers targeted the platforms’ design features themselves, including infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendation systems. By arguing that these were deliberate engineering choices tied to engagement metrics, the plaintiffs sidestepped Section 230 entirely and opened the door to holding the companies liable for how their products were built, not just what appeared on them.

This verdict was accompanied by around 2,000 other lawsuits pending against social media companies, and legal experts say this decision will set a benchmark for all of them. Both Meta and Google will appeal, with Meta stating that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” and Google arguing the verdict “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform.” Additionally, just one day earlier, a separate New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to protect children from predators on Instagram and Facebook. Overall, this hopefully forecasts the companies we see on our phones and in our everyday lives stepping up to take more responsibility for the negative aspects and effects of their platforms. Thanks so much for reading, and make sure to keep a close eye on social media companies in future court cases!