What you need to know
- A Los Angeles court jury has reached its final verdict, finding Meta and YouTube guilty of being “negligent” in the addictive nature of their social media applications.
- Kaley, also known as KGM, claimed that she had become extremely addicted to YouTube and Instagram from a young age, which caused her to have serious mental health problems.
- KGM received $3 million in damages, of which Meta will pay 70%.
A verdict has reportedly been reached in the social media addiction trial that put Meta and YouTube in the spotlight.
This afternoon (March 25), it was reported that Meta and YouTube had “failed” to warn users, especially younger ones, about the potential dangers of excessive social media use. CNBC reiterates that the trial concerned Kaley (or KGM), a young woman who took these two companies (among others) to court. The plaintiff, now 20, claimed she had become “addicted” to social media since she was a child. KGM added that due to the use of such apps, his mental health declined, resulting in “mental health-related harm,” according to CNBC.
Mental health issues highlighted during the trial included “severe body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.” How do you approach it? APNewsKGM argued that the “infinite scroll” mechanics present in many social media apps were part of their addictive nature. What’s more, the constant, constant stream of notifications didn’t help matters.
Article continues below.
At one point, it was mentioned during the trial that KGM had started using YouTube at the age of six before joining Instagram at nine. He would reportedly stay on these apps “all day.” In her defense, Meta used her therapists to say that none of them cited social media as “the cause” of her mental health issues. Additionally, YouTube rejected its categorization as a social media app, adding that KGM’s time on the platform rapidly decreased as he aged.
Regardless, the jury found Meta and YouTube guilty of negligence and awarded KGM $3 million in damages. It has been stated that Meta will take care of 70% of this cost, leaving YouTube to take care of the rest. APNews mentions that the plaintiff also sought tiktok and snap; However, those two reached a settlement before this reached the courtroom, leaving Meta and YouTube.
Is there a problem here?
Although a verdict has been reached, Meta delivered a statement shortly after, he stated: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
we have seen similar arguments held overseas in Australia during their social media ban. On December 10, Google informed Australian users that it would begin logging out anyone who was not 16 or older. Australia’s social media ban no longer excluded YouTube, so the company had no choice but to comply. Google’s counterargument claimed that a ban like this would not solve the problem.
Instead, it encouraged parents to look at the available selection of parental controls to impose limits on their children. Android Central’s Jerry Hildenbrand asked a question: “Can YouTube be ‘bad’ for kids?” Jerry argued that yes, it can be, but what that means will differ from parent to parent.
Android Central’s opinion
A trial like this is interesting. No one would disagree that, yes, there are dangers with anything On the Internet. You may come across drugs or more nefarious (potentially harmful) content. Of course, it’s the Internet. But where I disagree, and where I agree with Jerry, is who should take responsibility: the parents. In this case, as in any other, parents are responsible for what their child sees, uses and interacts with. I grew up in a time where I was given such limitations, as I was always interested in computers and phones. Sure, maybe there should be a big red warning. “Hey! This could be a problem if you use it too much.” Other than that, it’s the parents’ job by default to do what their title implies: parent.
