Two high-stakes trials running in tandem in different states could reshape the future of social media, but with one jury in a possible deadlock and another deliberating, the decision hangs in the balance.
Jurors in California and New Mexico are currently weighing up whether social media companies should be liable for harms caused to children using their platforms.
In Los Angeles, the jury is struggling to reach a verdict in the highly anticipated case against social media giants Meta and Google, accused of “engineering addiction” in young people.
They have been deliberating since March 13 after hearing evidence in the month-long trial, but sent a note to the judge Monday, informing her that they were at an impasse regarding one of the defendants, who was not named.
Google-owned YouTube and Meta’s Instagram and Facebook platforms are at the center of the California bellwether trial, and a decision against the social media apparatus could shake the tech industry and hold it accountable for the harms that some say come from its use.
If the jury in Los Angeles is deadlocked regarding the unnamed defendant, the case would have to be retried, at least partially, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl said.
In New Mexico, jurors are also deliberating in a second trial against Meta, which is accused of knowingly misleading users, including children, over the safety of its platforms.
Their decisions could reverberate in courtrooms across the country.
Eagerly awaiting the outcome are the 1,600 other plaintiffs across the U.S., namely parents who say their children have been harmed, and in some cases, died by suicide, because of excessive social media use.
The tech companies may have to shell out billions in damages if the plaintiffs succeed.
In Los Angeles, the plaintiff, identified as KGM in documents or Kaley, as her lawyers have called her during the trial, said her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts.
TikTok and Snap, the owner of Snapchat, were also named defendants in the lawsuit, but they each settled before the trial began.
The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Kaley was preyed upon as a vulnerable user. But attorneys representing Meta and Google-owned YouTube argued that Kaley turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism or a means of escaping her mental health struggles.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand last month, where he was grilled about his past congressional testimony, his company’s approach to underage users and Instagram’s beauty filters.
Prosecutors in New Mexico have adopted a slightly different argument. They allege that the dangers of addiction to social media as well as child sexual exploitation on Meta’s platforms weren’t properly addressed or disclosed by the company.
In 2023, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez filed suit against Meta, alleging that the company failed to protect children from abuse, including online solicitation and human trafficking.
“It’s clear that young people are spending too much time on Meta’s products, they’ve lost control,” prosecution attorney Linda Singer said Monday during closing statements. “Meta knew that and it didn’t disclose it.”
Singer said testimony and evidence at trial showed Meta’s algorithms had been recommending sensational and harmful content to teenagers, while alleging that the company failed to truly enforce its minimum user age of 13.
“The safety issues that you’ve heard about in this case, weren’t mistakes. …. They were a product of a corporate philosophy that chose growth and engagement over children’s safety,” Singer said. “And young people in this state and around the country have borne the cost.”
Meta attorney Kevin Huff pushed back on those assertions during opening statements on February 9, highlighting efforts to weed out harmful content from its platforms while warning users that some content still gets through its safety net.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.