Last week, a jury in Los Angeles made history. For the first time ever, Meta and YouTube have been found liable for designing platforms that addicted a child and harmed her mental health. 

The plaintiff, Kaley, started using YouTube at 6 and Instagram at 9. During the trial, her lawyers showed internal Meta documents, including one that said: "If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens." 

Meta and YouTube's defense tried to blame Kaley's struggles on other parts of her life. The jury saw through it. As a doctor who works with teens and their mental health, that defence disturbed me.

It's a tactic I've seen before: deflect, minimize, point anywhere but the product. But the evidence told a different story.

These companies had the data. Remember Frances Haugen? Her book shows how much they knew, and the personal cost of speaking out. Others, like the wonderful Arturo Bejar, have also come forward.

‍

What kids and teens need to understand about Kaley’s case:

‍

• In 1996, Congress passed a law called the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of this law said that social media companies were not legally responsible for what people posted on their platforms.

• However, a lot has changed since then. In the early days, platforms showed content in simple chronological order. For example, Facebook originally displayed posts based on when they were shared. But in 2009, Facebook officially shifted to an algorithmically curated feed. This meant posts were no longer shown just by time, but instead ranked based on popularity and predicted engagement.

‍

• As a result, Facebook and other companies began creating algorithms to send users content they believed would keep them engaged. Some of this content can be fun, like a dance team performing a great routine. But much of it includes material that teens were not actively looking for, and that is harmful for mental health, such as eating disorder content, frightening news, or other disturbing images and videos.

• In addition, the companies were creating all sorts of other mechanisms that promoted serious overuse and addiction by young people (everyone, but for now, we are focused on youth). Examples include: the Like button (2009), autoplay videos (2013–2015), and push notifications (2009–2012).

• For many years, companies were protected from legal responsibility because of Section 230 and the principle of free speech, the idea that people should be able to share what they want on these platforms.

• Over time, lawyers were able to show that the real issue was not just what people posted, but how the platforms were designed. This shifted the focus away from free speech and toward product design and its impact on young users. Organizations, such as the Social Media Victims Law Center here in Seattle, have been especially important in reframing the debate. Thank you!

• Another important point for young people to understand is how lawsuits work. When a case is brought, lawyers can access internal company documents and question employees under oath. This process helps uncover evidence about what companies knew and how their systems operated. That is how information came to light that contributed to juries finding companies like Meta and YouTube responsible in certain cases.

• Snapchat and TikTok settled out of court, meaning they thought it prudent to make some sort of payout to the plaintiffs. Most likely, they thought they might lose the case. The truth is, there are over 2,000 cases pending, so it would be silly to believe they too will not have their day in court.

• And finally, I want kids to REALLY understand why headlines are consistently calling this ruling social media’s “Big Tobacco moment.” Back in 1996, under oath, executives of tobacco companies all said they did not think tobacco was addictive. Yet their internal documents showed they were saying the opposite. Shame on them!

• The same situation exists with social media companies. They have been saying one thing to Congress and parents and quite another behind closed doors. Their internal documents have now shown us that they not only knew about the problems but promoted them if it meant more time online for our youth.

‍

Kaley’s attorney, Mark Lanier, and his team were extraordinary, pushing forward even after Lanier nearly lost his voice mid-trial.

I also want to give a huge shoutout to the Scrolling to Death podcast’s “The Heat Is On” series. The podcast’s host, Nicki Petrosis, along with Sarah Gardner, did a remarkable job covering the trial day by day.

I've spent more than a decade making films about how technology affects our kids. FINALLY, a jury confirmed what so many families have known for years.

Yes, the companies will appeal. But I am hopeful that this watershed moment will indeed result in much-needed changes for the sake of our children, our families, and our world.

‍

Questions to get the conversation started with youth in your life

1. What have you heard about the recent jury decision against Meta and YouTube?
2. Do you understand how the focus on product design vs Section 230 led to the jury’s decision?
3. If you were on the jury, what evidence would have swayed you one way or another?

‍

This week on YouTube

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel! We add new videos regularly and you'll find over 100 videos covering parenting advice, guidance, podcasts, movie clips and more. Here's our most recent:

‍

‍