Recent jury verdicts in California and New Mexico have sharpened scrutiny of social media companies as plaintiffs advance legal theories aimed at holding platforms liable for harm to children. The verdicts, totaling $6 million and $375 million respectively, found Meta and Google negligent in designing their platforms and failing to warn consumers about their risks. These trials are the first to test whether Big Tech can be held liable for the design of apps blamed for harming young people's wellbeing.
The Los Angeles trial is meant to serve as a bellwether for the thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in California state courts. Verdicts in bellwethers are often used by judges and attorneys to assess the potential value of remaining claims and guide settlement negotiations.
More than 2,400 lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies that make similar claims have been centralized in the California federal court. The federal litigation also includes lawsuits brought by state attorneys general alleging harm to their states, as well as cases by school districts that say social media addiction has caused costly disruptions and problems.
The verdicts could form the basis of appeals that would give higher courts a chance to weigh in on the key question of whether Section 230 applies to claims focused on platform design rather than content. Meta and Google have said they will appeal both verdicts.
In May, the judge in New Mexico will oversee a second phase of that trial where the state attorney general will ask for a court order directing Meta to make changes to its platforms and for additional monetary damages. Yes, in both state and federal courts, there will be more trials, including a trial scheduled for June in federal court in a lawsuit brought by a school district in Breathitt County, Kentucky, against Meta, ByteDance, Snap and Google.
