Why Meta and Google are losing court battles for damaging kids by trying to get them addicted
Juries ordered Meta and Google to pay millions over child safety failures, raising urgent questions about Big Tech accountability and congressional inaction.
It’s hardly shocking to learn that our lawmakers fell down on the job, given the inability of Congress to solve just about any problem.
Just look at how long the self-inflicted airport chaos dragged on while the parties squabbled.
HAWLEY LAUNCHES GOOGLE INVESTIGATION AFTER 'SHOCKING' CHILD TRAFFICKING TESTIMONY AT SENATE HEARING
For more than a decade, Capitol Hill has been all talk and no action when it comes to the tech giants that are hooking generations of kids. One reason is that these companies are incredibly wealthy and increasingly determined to use their colossal amounts of cash to buy influence.
In the 2024 cycle, Big Tech made more than $764 million in donations.
Elon Musk, the ruler of X, contributed more than $240 million. Tech guru Marc Andreessen and his firm donated $89 million. Meta, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple each kicked in $1 million for President Trump’s inauguration.
Lo and behold, the few lawmakers pushing legislation to help ensure the safety of kids online found their bills going nowhere fast.
That’s why a pair of verdicts against Silicon Valley giants is so important, and a potential turning point.
By filing these suits, individuals are trying to do what the politicians will not, and that’s to hold these mega-corporations accountable.
In a New Mexico case last week, a jury ordered Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to pay $375 million for endangering children,
The next day, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, guilty of negligence and awarded $6 million to a woman who argued that as a child she had become addicted to these sites.
The numbers are a rounding error for these corporations. But with thousands of other suits pending, the message is not.
And the companies are getting clobbered in the court of public opinion.
Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the L.A. plaintiff known as KGM, told Fox Business: "I believe the companies have purposely put addictive features into their apps because they know the more time we spend watching, the more money they make." He has also cited the lure of autoplay videos and algorithmic recommendations,
"Is this the beginning of the end for social media as we know it?" asked the host of Britain’s Fourcast podcast.
That, I must say, is a tad melodramatic.
In the California case, KGM, a 20-year-old woman, said such features as the "infinite scroll" got her addicted as a kid and led to depression, anxiety and thoughts of self-harm. (She started using YouTube at 6 and Instagram at 9, though both require a minimum age of 13.)
In that trial, Mark Zuckerberg was asked about lifting a temporary ban on beauty filters that some at Meta cautioned could be harmful to teenage girls.
"I felt like the evidence wasn’t clear enough to support limiting people’s expression," he said.
But the verdicts may not be as apocalyptic as they seem right now.
For one thing, they could be overturned on appeal. It’s not hard to imagine a conservative Supreme Court delivering such a ruling.
NEWSOM WEIGHS IN ON SOCIAL MEDIA AGE RESTRICTIONS, CITING EXPERIENCE AS A PARENT: ‘WE NEED HELP’
The companies point to Section 230 of a 1996 communications law, which shields them from liability for what users post on the sites. The latest lawsuits have focused instead on how these platforms are designed, with "like" buttons and other features.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page warns of a "shakedown" by lawyers:
"There’s no doubt that increasing teen use of social media and smartphones over the last 15 years has coincided with rising levels of depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. But it’s hard if not impossible to prove that social media caused any given individual’s troubles, let alone apportion liability among the platforms."
The Journal added: "Trial lawyers will now use the L.A. verdict in advertisements to recruit more plaintiffs. They may even use the social-media platforms to advertise. Unemployed? Depressed? Spend your Friday nights scrolling? You could make big money by holding billionaires responsible for your problems."
In fairness, there must be some level of personal responsibility here, especially among parents setting boundaries for their children.
And little surprise that Congress, which is addicted to political donations, is MIA.
The tactics of the techies remind me of Big Tobacco, which is clearly marketed to teenagers in an effort to get them addicted for life. Obviously, no one’s dying of cancer here, but depression can also be a crippling disease.
Back in 1998, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, accused of hiding information about the dangers of smoking, were pressured into a $206-billion settlement with more than 40 states.
The bottom line is that these tech companies were once admired, but their conduct over the years, on children and other issues, has seriously scarred their reputations.
Meta’s president, Dina Powell McCormick, told Axios: "As a mom, this is really important to me, and very personal. I see firsthand just how hard the company is trying to ensure that there’s not harmful content, to ensure we’re empowering parents to the best of our ability, and it’s something that I watch being focused on every single day."
Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. I’m not doubting her sincerity. But if Meta and the others had really reformed how they treat children, they wouldn’t be in this legal mess today.
