Meta, YouTube Trial Could Bring Justice for Families, More Protections for Kids: Analyst

And Instagram's top executive took the witness stand in Los Angeles this week in a closely watched trial. This as Google and Meta face a lawsuit in L.A. from 1600 plaintiffs. They're accusing the tech giants of creating digital products that are designed to be addictive, resulting in harm. Joining us now to discuss the case against Meta and Google in L.A. is Daniel Cochran. He's a senior research associate with the Heritage Foundation. Daniel, thanks for joining this morning. Can you elaborate on some of the alleged harms that the plaintiffs are saying are as a result of Meta and YouTube, specifically to this case? Yeah, it's great to be with you. This case opens the door to parents whose kids have been victimized by social media. And the harm stemmed from product features that pull them in to destructive relationships online, algorithms that are highly addictive to children in particular. In a subsequent case, there were internal documents where Meta's own employees referred to their activities as drug pushers. They referred to their own products as essentially digital narcotics. And there's a variety of ways that these products are harmful. In addition to being highly addictive, they also have unfortunately opened the door to teen suicide, self-harm, declining mental health. TikTok in particular is one of the worst offenders here. TikTok's 4U feed repeatedly has recommended videos to young people, encouraging them to take their own lives. In fact, that's a couple of several of the plaintiffs are alleging. The families of the plaintiffs are alleging that the TikTok in curating its videos to recommend self-harm is violating the law. And so this is the first time that these companies are being held accountable. And for the sake of kids that are vulnerable and often without recourse, this really is an important moment. And as you just mentioned, TikTok having settled, we just saw this previous story about Snapchat. They've also settled in this case. So is there any foreshadowing with what Snapchat and TikTok have agreed to that you see potentially Meta and Google going along with in regards to this case? Well, it's notable that Meta and YouTube are sticking it out. And I think that's really risky because going to trial in a case like this, if the jury finds essentially that they have, that they're liable, this is going to have ramifications far beyond these plaintiffs, although this is a very big case. You mentioned 1,600 plaintiffs, because ultimately if you can sue these companies in state court, this is in the state of California, state court for defective products, which is essentially what the social media companies are. I mean, they're defective products that are designed to ensnare children. Then that means that companies could face ruin if they release products to vulnerable populations like kids without implementing reasonable safeguards. So the hope here is both justice for these families, that needs to absolutely happen, but long term, if you open the courthouse doors to this kind of litigation and this trial succeeds, it could have a much more fundamental effect on how social media platforms are designed and deployed going forward. And I think kids would greatly benefit from that outcome. And Daniel, historically, these tech platforms were shielded from liability under something called Section 230. Can you outline what that is and how it's been used in the past and why, in this case, that might be coming to an end? Yeah. So Section 230 basically does two things. It says, number one, as an interactive computer service, so a platform, you're not liable for the content posted by your users. It also says, if you take good faith measures to block obscenity, then you're also not liable for doing that. And of course, the reason for that is Congress, in the early days of 230, that was 1996 when the bill was originally passed or the law was originally enacted, they wanted to make sure that the internet remained a free and open space while also fighting the proliferation of pornography. We've seen now the internet become accessible and a lot of these platforms become accessible with AI-generated pornography, child sexual abuse material, all kinds of erotica. And the courts, particularly the Third Circuit, ruled in a case brought by the parents of Megan Garcia, a young girl who took her own life after watching a self-asphyxiation video recommended to her by TikTok's algorithm. TikTok raised, of course, the 230 claim. The court dismissed it and said, look, insofar as the company is recommending content, you can't claim immunity from liability because they're, in those cases, they're acting essentially like a publisher. So the Third Circuit's already limited TikTok. Other circuits, and this is, again, in the federal court, they have different interpretations as to what 230 covers. But what's really important here in California with these 1,600 plaintiffs is that the courts have said, look, 230, maybe it covers content, but it certainly does not cover defective design. So the lawsuit is alleging, insofar as you create an algorithm that is recommending content, addicting kids, creating these harms, you're still liable regardless of 230. So that's a really notable feature of this case. And Daniel, we just have about 30 seconds left. Addiction is a big departure from what had been claimed in the past. That historically was for really drugs and alcohol. But now we see online pornography, gaming, these digital services. Australia has banned social media. To my knowledge, they've not banned gaming. Do you see other countries, particularly the U.S., doing something stronger to follow Australia's lead? Well, we really need to, and we're already doing that at the state level. For example, bell-to-bell bans on smartphone use. You're seeing that have really positive effects. A lot of folks in Gen Z, the Gen Z generation, they're doing it on their own. They're putting away their phones. But yes, it's important to recognize that the effects of the brain, that social media has on the brain, is similar to drugs. So that response, the dopamine response that social media apps elicit, it's very similar to if you're taking hard drugs, and that's by design. And by the way, these companies know that. I referred to the internal conversation at Instagram, where those employees were referring to themselves as pushers. They understand exactly what they're doing. It's time for them to be held accountable. Yeah, certainly a shocking story. We'll be watching this case closely. Thanks for joining, Daniel Cochran. Thanks.