Verdict finds what any parent knows: social media is designed to be addictive

Any parent with experience of children growing up in the social media age knows how addictive and potentially harmful the many hours they spend glued to their screens can be. We do not need a court to tell us. But the verdict delivered by a jury in Los Angeles last week, the first of its kind, has finally given legal force to concerns that have been growing for years. The landmark case against Meta and YouTube, which is being compared to the groundbreaking settlement made by major US tobacco companies in the 1990s, has far-reaching implications. It comes as governments around the world step up efforts to combat the dangers posed to children by their exposure to harmful online content and the impact of too much screen time. There has been a shift in perceptions. The case in California was brought by a 20-year-old woman, referred to as Kaley, who was awarded US$6 million in damages for the mental health problems she suffered as a result of her excessive use of two popular platforms when a child. Meta, which owns Instagram, was found by the jury to be 70 per cent liable and YouTube, owned by Google, 30 per cent responsible. TikTok and Snap settled on undisclosed terms before the trial. Kaley said she was addicted to the platforms, starting with YouTube on her iPod touch from the age of six and Instagram at nine. She became depressed and began to self-harm by the time she was 10. At 13, Kaley was diagnosed with body dysmorphia and social phobia. She told the court social media use lowered her self-esteem, led her to give up her hobbies and have difficulty making friends. The tech giants contested the legal action. Meta argued that the mental health of young people is complex and said its platform could not be blamed. Google said YouTube was a streaming platform, not a social media site, and had been misunderstood. They plan to appeal. But the significance of the verdict lies in the nature of the jury’s finding. The companies were found to have been negligent. The design and operation of their platforms, with features intended to keep users engaged, made them addictive. The jurors also decided Meta and YouTube either knew or should have known their products posed a danger to children and took insufficient steps to warn of the risks. The verdict, if upheld on appeal, could lead to social media companies having to curb their use of common features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and notifications which are key to their business strategies. It could be a turning point. But this is just the beginning. The case was attended by families of other children who are said to have died or otherwise suffered harm as a result of their social media use. Thousands of similar cases are in the pipeline. Momentum is building. The previous day, in a separate case in New Mexico, Meta was fined US$375 million when a jury found the company liable for endangering children by making them vulnerable to predators and other types of harm on its platforms. The prosecution was brought by the state, which alleged Meta’s algorithms steered adults towards content posted by teenagers, exposing them to sexual abuse, solicitation and trafficking. The company was also accused of hiding internal evidence of the risks to young users. “The jury’s verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety,” said New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, who brought the case. Meta denied wrongdoing, disagrees with the verdict and intends to appeal. The cases are being closely followed globally. Pressure is mounting on tech companies and governments to take action to protect young social media users amid growing evidence of potential harm. Australia took the drastic step of banning children under 16 from using major social media platforms in December. The blanket restriction, which if breached could leave tech companies facing a fine of up to A$49.5 million, has led to the mass closure of accounts and caused much controversy. So far, it seems to have had mixed results. Other countries, including Britain, France, Spain, New Zealand and Indonesia, are considering imposing bans. Britain is taking a measured approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 places a legal duty on social media platforms to protect children by preventing them from accessing harmful content. Companies can be fined heavily for breaches. A three-month public consultation launched this month is intended to inform the government on the next steps it will take to protect children. A social media ban, overnight curfew and restrictions on “design features that encourage excessive use” are among the options. This coincides with a pilot scheme involving 300 teenagers whose social media access is either blocked completely, barred at night, or subject to time limits. The aim is to ensure that the measures ultimately taken are well-informed and based on evidence, with all stakeholders – including children – consulted. The government has pledged it will act quickly on the findings. Responding to the Los Angeles court decision, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it is not a question of whether things would change – they will. It is about what form those changes will take. Hong Kong would be well advised to adopt a similar approach. There are concerns in the city about excessive screen time and the impact of social media exposure on children’s mental health and development. The Department of Health first established an advisory group in 2013. Last year, the government said it will be reconvened. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, in his policy address, recognised the “profound impact” of social media on the mental health of the young. The guidelines for parents on the screen time limits for children of different ages are being reviewed and updated. There are, as yet, no plans to introduce a social media ban of the kind imposed in Australia. There is an understandable concern not to adopt measures that will unduly restrict the many benefits engagement with the digital world brings to children, helping them learn, create, communicate and connect. A ban, it is feared, would leave vulnerable children isolated from the online communities on which they depend and drive them to dark, unregulated apps. There is clearly a balance to be struck. But the court cases in the US might prove to be a tipping point, leading to much-needed policy changes and the strengthening of safeguards. The safety of our children must be the priority.

Verdict finds what any parent knows: social media is designed to be addictive

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Jurors also decided Meta and YouTube either knew or should have known their products posed a danger to children and did not do enough to warn of the risks

Jurors also decided Meta and YouTube either knew or should have known their products posed a danger to children and did not do enough to warn of the risks