Meta, YouTube found liable in addiction trial

Jo Ling, a powerful moment, indeed. As you mentioned, it's not looking good for Meta. And I, as a parent with three teenagers at home, I know that everybody out there is asking the same question. How quickly do you think it is possible that this could force these companies to change how they operate? So the case in New Mexico, for example, in May, we expect a bench trial from that court as to determine what should happen or what will be demanded of Meta in terms of changes to their platform. But let's remember, Meta plans to appeal that case. Meta is also evaluating the legal options here in Los Angeles. And so many of the legal experts we've been talking to have said this is probably eventually headed in some consolidated form to the Supreme Court. You also have a major federal case in Oakland coming, a multidistrict litigation. And that trial, I believe, is expected to start in June. And so when you put all of this together, plus all of the other court cases, changing these platforms will require a major heavy lift, and it will have to be specific in nature. And so it may very well end up at the highest court when it comes to any change that you or I or your teenagers or our kids in our communities would actually feel on their smartphones, in these apps.

You can definitely feel the momentum building, as you mentioned. What have the reactions been like from the parties involved? So Meta has said it's evaluating its legal options in LA. In terms of the New Mexico case, they plan to appeal. We have heard from some of these advocates. Their emails and texts are rolling in right now. They say that this is an encouraging moment, that these companies are being held accountable for designing products that addict and harm children. Others saying that it's revealing that these conclusions were drawn by these two juries. And in the case of the multidistrict litigation that's coming later this year, the lawyers there say they look forward to presenting their own evidence of misconduct that they allege that was conducted by Google and Meta, as well as TikTok and Snap. So this story certainly just beginning, even though this is a major watershed moment. But if you look back at what happened here in Los Angeles, you had CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who you just saw on the screen there, in court presenting his case with his legal team directly to the jury, at times, a very tense, a very challenging situation in court, but saying that they did not design these products to be harmful to young people. They did not design these to be addictive, while the plaintiff's side bringing in evidence, saying that there were internal memos that showed that this company wanted to increase the number of hours that young people were spending on Instagram, on Facebook. And so that's what the jury had to parse through over these eight days, asking multiple questions of the judge. And here we are today with a verdict. And while $3 million for most people sounds like a lot of money, it's a minor, teeny, tiny drop in the bucket for a company like Meta. What is more important here is what the final outcome is after this. I would imagine we may see an appeal or some kind of additional legal action-- what that ultimately leads to when it comes to the products. But this is about-- it's an approach. It's an interesting legal approach. This is taking addiction and consumer product safety laws, in the case of New Mexico, and using those as the vehicle to attempt to rein in these tech companies and hold them accountable. Very different than what has been approached in Congress, what has been proposed at the federal level. So we'll see how this changes the landscape. But we're waiting to hear from the jury, and we will be in court shortly. [? For you, ?] Meg.

And Jo Ling, one last question. Because as you mentioned, this fine is a drop in the bucket, especially for Meta. What really would make an impact is losing viewers and potential advertisers. What does that road look like at this point after having this decision come down? That's a really great question. I don't know the answer to it. We do know that advertising dollars flow very strongly into these social media platforms, because that is where people are, and that's where they're spending their time. So it will be interesting to see if we see any material impact on their revenue when it comes to their quarterly reports, in the case of Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. If these court cases lead to platform changes in the features, so to speak, that may change the game. But I think it's hard to say right now. It's really unclear. It's very early. But what we do know is that there's this sense of responsibility now, shifting lanes, so to speak. For so long, it's been about parents having to deal with parental controls, which so many parents have told us they're doing to the best of their ability. But these products have been designed in a way, in their view, to be addicting and impossible to manage when it comes to their teenagers' mental health. So I'm sure we're going to hear a lot from both sides later today outside of LA Superior Court. We'll bring that to you.

All right. Jo Ling Kent, thank you so much for covering all of this. We appreciate it. We want to bring in now CBS News legal contributor Caroline Polisi. Caroline, it's great to see you. A huge decision here to unpack. This now makes two verdicts against social media platforms. Could this force changes in how they design those addictive algorithms? I think we can only hope. This is certainly a clarion call to these big tech behemoths, basically saying, well, if the legislature is not going to step in and regulate you, the legal system is going to. The legal system tends to lag about a decade behind what's going on in the culture to catch up with regulating spheres. And I think we've all known for over a decade that these types of platforms are addictive and can be harmful to our children's mental health. And now we're seeing it play out. It just took a while for those legal theories to develop. And it's true. These are novel legal theories, which is why I think there are some appealable issues here. But basically, what has been argued on the parts of these plaintiffs, and certainly in New Mexico, is that it's a products liability case. It's like big tobacco, essentially, like those cases a decade ago, that these products were designed to have a defect in them, which is that they were designed to be a literal drug. And so what you saw plaintiffs arguing in this case, in California, is that these features like the endless scrolling, the ability to like and have followers and things like that, even these filters that can be used on Instagram, that those all were defects of this product and that Meta and YouTube and those platforms, that they knew how harmful and addictive that these features were. And yet, in the face of that, they continued to use them and really put profits over safety. Now, in New Mexico, that case was a little bit different. It was about child sexual predators that had used the platforms. The allegations were that these platforms knew that these predators were on their platforms, and they did nothing, really, to stop it. That legal theory has to do with really what has traditionally been a federal shield for liability for content that is posted on these platforms. Traditionally, it has shielded these big companies from liability. But we're seeing that theory, get holes poked in it. So we'll see if it stands up to these appeals. But certainly, this is a new dawn, a new era.

Speaking of the appeals, Meta already said they will appeal the New Mexico decision. Could this Los Angeles decision also be appealed? I think certainly they will appeal the Los Angeles decision. One thing I would note, the $3 million, that's a compensatory damages amount. They haven't deliberated on the punitive damages portion. Punitive damages are just what they sound like. They're meant to be punishment for a company's deceitful or fraudulent behavior. These compensatory damages, I'm not surprised, are so low, low in the big scheme of things, because they're for one plaintiff. And they're supposed to make that plaintiff whole based on her pain and suffering and the emotional distress that was inflicted upon her. And remember, this case centered around that one plaintiff that went by her initials in this case about her mental health struggles, claiming she had been addicted to both YouTube and Instagram from age six on, really. And so monetary damages can hurt companies' bottom lines. In the case of the New Mexico case, a judge has yet to decide what sort of restrictions will be imposed. But I think we're seeing a sea change here and, certainly, a push for potentially the legislature to step in and do some of that heavy lifting that the legal realm maybe can't do.

We've all talked about how addictive these devices are. I remember interviewing Jonathan Haidt, the author of The Anxious Generation,and he was talking about you can't expect a kid to put a cell phone in their pocket and not expect them to reach for it. Several times, he compared it to a heroin user. You wouldn't have them put a needle in their pocket and not expect them to shoot up. That's how addictive we're talking about. I'm curious from a legal perspective, what does this trial reveal about this ongoing debate over social media, the mental health, and teenagers? Absolutely. I mean, I myself, as an adult with a brain, with a fully developed prefrontal cortex, cannot resist the endless scrolling. And certainly, I see it in my children. Any parent with young children or teenage kids understands exactly what this trial is about. It's an uphill battle. And parents can't be the only one left fighting because it's just-- you can't win. I think the legal issue here is exactly this issue of what really is addiction, because the plaintiff's theory here, again, was a products liability theory that the product was actually literally addictive, just like a drug. And the defense pushed back on that saying, well, was she ever diagnosed with a social media addiction? We haven't really seen that in the mental health sphere, like in terms of being defined in the DSM. But I think we're moving towards that direction in terms of what can be qualified and quantified in terms of mental health disorders that are caused and/or exacerbated by social media use. And we're going to see that being used a lot more often in the legal space. Caroline, we know kids average more than seven hours on screens a day. We know there's a mental health crisis. We know they are struggling with addiction, and there's this loneliness epidemic. What is it going to take for lawmakers to step in with regulation after this outcome? Yeah, I mean, I'm right there with you. I feel the same way. Look, we've seen other countries take steps, particularly in Australia, limiting social media use to an age limit. Jonathan Haidt, as you noted, implementing this wait till 8:00 sort of initiative. Certainly in my town and in towns across the country, parents are banding together because the legislature will not step in and because it takes a long time for the legal system to play out. But you can't stand up to-- you can't stand up to companies of this size. I mean, they're just, again, behemoths. And I think we're seeing through this discovery process, we're seeing behind the scenes what is known by these executives about their product, about the nature of their product, and really that they are pushing more time on the screens knowingly based on these addictive features. And I think people are angry about it and rightfully so.

Absolutely. Jo Ling Kent and Caroline Polisi, thank you both so much.