Reports from CNBC and the Wall Street Journal
In Brief – A New Mexico state court jury has found Meta liable for $375 million in civil damages in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of New Mexico for misleading users about the safety of its platforms and enabling the sexual exploitation of young users, and a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for operating products that harmed kids and teens and failed to warn about those dangers, ordering the companies to pay $2 million to the 20-year old plaintiff who alleged that her mental illnesses were caused by social media use.
Context – Social media critics globally have been campaigning for years to force platforms to change. Sec. 230 has shaped the US battle. It protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users, and for content moderation decisions. With regulating objectionable content off the table, US campaigners have focused on platform features they allege were designed to be addictive and harm young users. The EU and UK are simply regulating social media. And social media age limits, started in Australia, are gaining steam in many countries. In the US Congress, social media legislation has been stymied by partisan disagreements, and state laws, crafted to circumvent Sec. 230, have often been blocked by federal judges for violating the First Amendment. Although recent contrarian appeals court decisions in the 5th and 11th circuit’s set up a likely Supreme Court case. But the biggest factor in the US may prove to be thousands of civil lawsuits from private plaintiffs, school districts, and State AGs. Most have been consolidated in the California state court of Judge Carolyn Kuhl or the federal district court of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Most judges, including Kuhl and Gonzalez, have ruled that Sec. 230 only shields the platforms from some charges, setting up civil trials like Meta’s in New Mexico, and the first of potentially thousands in Kuhl’s court. Enough expensive losses at the hands of juries primed by years of media claims of the supposed evils of social media and the platforms may agree to make change to their US operations that would not withstand First Amendment scrutiny if they were mandated.