What you need to know
- A Los Angeles court jury has reached its final verdict, stating that it finds Meta and YouTube guilty of being “negligent” in the addictive nature of their social media apps.
- Kaley, otherwise referred to as K.G.M., claimed that she had become extremely addicted to YouTube and Instagram from a young age, which led to severe mental health problems.
- K.G.M. was awarded $3 million in damages, of which Meta will handle 70%.
A verdict has reportedly been reached in the trial of social media addiction that put Meta and YouTube in the spotlight.
This afternoon (Mar 25), it was reported that Meta and YouTube had “failed” to warn users, especially younger users, about the potential dangers of excessively using social media. CNBC reiterates that the trial concerned Kaley (or K.G.M.), a young woman who took these two companies (among others) to court. The plaintiff, now 20 years of age, said that she had become “addicted” to social media since she was a child. K.G.M. added that, due to her usage of such apps, her mental health declined, resulting in “mental health-related harms,” per CNBC.
Mental health issues highlighted during the trial included “severe body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts.” As addressed by APNews, K.G.M. argued that the “infinite scrolling” mechanic present in many social media apps was a part of its addictive nature. What’s more, the constant, steady flow of notifications didn’t help anything.
Article continues below
At one point, it was mentioned during the trial that K.G.M. had started her usage of YouTube at the age of six before joining Instagram at nine. She would reportedly remain on these apps “all day long.” In their defense, Meta used her therapists in saying that none of them cited social media as “the cause” for her mental health issues. Additionally, YouTube declined its categorization as a social media app, adding that K.G.M’s time on the platform rapidly declined as she aged.
Regardless, the jury found both Meta and YouTube guilty of negligence, awarding K.G.M. $3 million in damages. It has been stated that Meta is to handle 70% of this cost, leaving YouTube to take care of the rest. APNews mentions that the plaintiff also sought TikTok and Snap; however, those two settled before this ever reached the courtroom, leaving Meta and YouTube.
Is there an issue here?
While a verdict has been reached, Meta delivered a statement shortly after, stating, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
We’ve seen similar arguments held overseas in Australia during its social media ban. Back on December 10, Google informed Australian users that it would begin logging anyone out who was not 16 years or older. Australia’s social media ban no longer excluded YouTube, so the company had no other choice but to comply. Google’s counterargument stated that a ban such as this wouldn’t help the problem.
Instead, it encouraged parents to look toward the available selection of parental controls to place limits on their children. One question was asked by Android Central’s Jerry Hildenbrand: “Can YouTube be ‘bad’ for kids?” The argument by Jerry was made that, yes, it can be, but what that means will differ from parent to parent.
Android Central’s Take
A trial like this is an interesting one. I’m no one would disagree that, yeah, there are dangers with anything on the internet. You can stumble across drugs or more nefarious—potentially harmful—content. Of course, it’s the internet. But where I diverge, and where I agree with Jerry, is who should take responsibility: the parents. In this case, much like any other, the parent is responsible for what their child views, uses, and interacts with. I grew up in a time when such limitations were given to me, since I was always interested in computers and phones. Sure, maybe there should be a big red warning. “Hey! This could be a problem if you use it too much.” Aside from that, it is the parents’ job by default to do what their title entails: parent.
By
