REED COWAN:
00:00:00
Continuing breaking news coverage here on CBS News 24/7. You see right here outside of that courtroom a lot of people waiting with cameras. They are waiting to hear from jurors who just handed down a landmark ruling. Meta and YouTube just received a guilty verdict in a landmark trial focusing on social-media addiction and mental health. So let's talk to CBS News correspondent Shanelle Kaul following this in the newsroom. Shanelle, we understand that we're starting to hear now from the social-media company. Yeah, we were actually waiting for this verdict for nine days now, nine days of deliberations. Now we have a verdict. The jury finding that Meta and YouTube are both liable on all charges. They voted to award $3 million in damages to KGM. That is, of course, the 20-year-old woman who brought this case against the social-media companies Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok. Now, you will remember that Snap and TikTok actually settled with KGM, the woman who brought this suit forward, before the jury was selected. So this trial was really focused on both Meta and YouTube. The jury also finding Meta will be responsible for 70% and-- sorry, Meta for 70% and YouTube 30%. And you mentioned reaction. We are just getting reaction this hour from Meta spokesperson Liza Crenshaw in a statement saying, quote, "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options." So at this point, also in the note it says that the jurors were not unanimous, and the compensatory damages were just $3 million. It also says they plan to have more to share after punitive damages are assessed. OK, Shanelle Kaul with that reaction while we await that emergence of some of the jurors to come out and talk about why they made those decisions, especially now that that statement came out, where it looks like Meta's attorneys are zeroing in on nonunanimous. So let's talk about that. CBS News Legal Contributor Caroline Polisi joining us now. Were you struck by that, or did that catch your ear about drilling down on nonunanimous? I knew they'd say that, Reed, because the note that we heard about that the jurors asked the judge about essentially gave the indication that they weren't unanimous. But, fun fact, in California state court, civil cases don't need to have unanimity to find liability. They only need 9 out of the 12 jurors to agree. So that is not something that many people think of when they think of trials. They, obviously, think certainly in a criminal trial, you need unanimity and then often in some civil cases as well, but a funny quirk of California state law. So the fact that Meta is bringing that up as though it's a defect in sort of the way that this case was decided by the jurors is potentially disingenuous. Those are the rules of the game. But, obviously, they're also homing in on the small dollar amount. I mean, small. We say in the big picture here, $3 million in compensatory damages isn't that much. I would like to know whether or not punitive damages were on the table. That's when you get those really, really high numbers. Remember, we talked about what damages represent. Punitive damages are for punishment. So I would be interested to see how that goes. But certainly they're going to fight this case, both Meta and YouTube, as far as they can get. So I'm curious. They're really drilling down on what we understand about the jury not being unanimous in this. If that is what they're going to stand on, if those are the boots on their feet, so to speak, what's the threshold to really have some force or some thrust to that argument? Yeah, I think they'll probably make some sort of argument. They'll try to poll the jurors to see whether or not there was any sort of bullying or intimidation. There was reporting that there was one juror that had a nonrefundable vacation leaving tomorrow and whether or not sort of that was a pressure point on the negotiations. But more likely, I think they will appeal this verdict on legal grounds, invalidating the theory on which the plaintiffs brought this case, or something about the evidentiary standard or the evidence that was brought into the case. More so really on the New Mexico case because that was much bigger damages. We saw that was a theory of liability that really does have long-lasting legal implications. That has to do with actually regulating the content on some of these platforms, which before then, before now, we really haven't seen because of these robust First Amendment rights. But certainly these companies are going to be spending millions of dollars on very high-powered attorneys to look into every avenue of appeal. I'm looking at these court sketches, and, of course, we see, by design, that they are faceless because we really haven't known much about the identity of the person who brought this suit. Now that this is at least over for now, maybe looking at appeals, do you anticipate that there would be any incentive for her to come forward and to really put a human face on this story to the American public? Yeah, potentially. There is a favor in American law for disclosure. We, sort of as the American public, have a right to know the identities of plaintiffs that bring cases. And so the fact that she was identified only by her initials-- she was also called Kaley throughout the trial-- was a judgment call on the part of the judge. I mean, typically, you only reserve that kind of anonymity for children. Now, she was alleging the conduct here when she was child, but she's a 20-year-old woman now. So I would think-- I mean, I think it's probably known what her identity is. Yeah, we'll see if she voluntarily comes forward. We would love to have that interview exclusive right here on CBS News 24/7. Caroline Polisi, thank you so, so much.
