We’ve all had days where our screen time was atrocious, scrolling through reels as if we were trying to find the very last one. Turns out, you could just sue Instagram for that. That’s exactly what a 20-year-old Californian did to YouTube and Mark Zuckerberg’s company, Meta — and she actually got $6 million in damages.
The plaintiff chose anonymity and is currently only known by her initials, KGM. It was her testimony in a California court that eventually swayed the jury in her favor. All things considered, Silicon Valley has not had much favor on any particular side of the social media debate. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and even YouTube have been perceived as institutions with little willingness to stand up to pressure from the current administration. So KGM’s verdict was received warmly even before people got more context.
But KGM’s context truly painted a compelling case, even without the backdrop of the public perception these institutions currently have. She testified that when she was a pubescent child, she would spend up to 16 hours a day on these social platforms. It’s worth noting that YouTube has been doing phenomenal business, which is why so many Hollywood companies are restructuring to compete for screen time.
The problem here is how the companies at the top have been winning this battle for screen time. According to findings from the six-week trial, the specific design choice of the “infinite scroll” has profoundly complex effects on the mind that can cause addiction, especially when someone has mental health struggles or their mind is still developing.
According to reports, the case is expected to be a “bellwether trial” that inspires copycat suits in the near future. The jury found both companies negligent but deemed Meta more responsible, reportedly assigning it 70% of the $6 million payout, while YouTube will cover the rest.
Both Zuckerberg and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified but were unable to convince the jury of their companies’ lack of involvement in KGM’s addiction. One juror, in particular, said Zuckerberg’s testimony did not “sit well” with the jury. But it shouldn’t be a problem for either company, considering YouTube paid Trump over $24 million just over a year ago after banning him, and Zuckerberg, too, was seen asking the president how much money he needs on camera.
What is a problem, according to professor and director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute, Sarah Kreps, is that there are “thousands” of such pending cases against the companies in the pipeline. Kreps told Euronews, “The concern, if you’re a social media platform, is that as this case goes, so might these others. Once you have this type of verdict in one case, it just opens the floodgates for so much more.”
This is the second major ruling against Meta this month. Another court in New Mexico ordered the company to pay $375 million after determining that it knowingly harmed children’s mental health and even concealed information about child sexual exploitation.
An associate professor of law at Villanova University, Peter Ormerod, warned critics of these companies to be cautious about these “small” wins, but he added that this is another step toward a major settlement akin to those seen in the tobacco and opioid industries.
