What Next | Daily News and Analysis · Slate Podcasts

Social Media’s Big Tobacco Moment

·24 min·1 clip

The jury awarded KGM $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

1. What Next TBD covers the Los Angeles verdict in the social media addiction case against Meta and YouTube. 2. Host Lizzie O'Leary interviews New York Times tech reporter Ryan Mack, who watched the trial and the courthouse reaction. 3. The episode asks whether juries are becoming the main force holding social media companies accountable when Congress has not. 4. KGM, a 20-year-old plaintiff from Northern California, used YouTube since age 8 and Instagram since age 9. 5. Her lawsuit was filed about four years ago, when she was still a minor, and she testified in court under initials. 6. The case was a bellwether trial in Los Angeles, where eight more cases are set to go forward. 7. TikTok and Snap were originally included, but both companies settled before trial. 8. The plaintiffs focused on addiction and platform design, not the content users posted. 9. Ryan Mack says that strategy was meant to avoid Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 10. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for third-party content, such as a user’s death threat or other post. 11. Mack describes the plaintiffs’ theory as “the big tobacco philosophy,” meaning the design itself was treated as the harmful product. 12. He says Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri testified, and their testimony involved careful efforts to avoid admitting fault. 13. The jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and said the companies failed to adequately warn users about Instagram and YouTube. 14. The verdict followed nine days of deliberation, which Mack says reflected how seriously the jury treated the case. 15. Families of social media users who had died or attempted suicide stood outside the courthouse and saw the ruling as proxy justice. 16. The damages phase produced $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, divided 70% to Meta and 30% to YouTube. 17. Mark Lanier asked for far more punitive damages and used a jar of M&Ms to argue that billions of dollars in net worth would not be dented by a small award. 18. Mack says the result matters beyond the money because it gives future plaintiffs a template for suing over app design. 19. The conversation is measured and reporter-driven, with Lizzie O'Leary pressing on Section 230, regulation, and the limits of legal accountability. 20. Listeners interested in tech law, platform accountability, and Section 230 debates will get the most from it. 21. Listeners looking for light tech commentary or a short headline recap may skip it.

As heard by us

A clear look at a landmark verdict, the accountability fight behind it, and what the damages may mean at this scale.

Ryan Mack's courthouse reporting keeps the verdict concrete. A Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for damages, said their negligence was a substantial factor in the harm to the plaintiff, and ruled that both companies failed to warn users about the dangers of…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want the verdict-day version of the social media addiction trial.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from What Next | Daily News and Analysis