Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Social media giants face a revolution built on accountability

New landmark rulings from recent trials might just force social media’s big players into being accountable for child safety. Silicon Valley is reeling.

The past few days have been quite rough for big tech. The companies that have long positioned themselves above the law just had the rug pulled, and things may never be the same for them.

For years, companies like Meta and Google have relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), which shields them from liability for user-generated content while allowing them to moderate their platforms as they see fit. Big tech has profited from user content and addictive algorithms while largely avoiding growing piles of lawsuits.

No one has been more affected than the generations born into a digitised world. Though the minimum age for entering social media platforms is 13, nearly 40% of children in the US ages 8 to 12 still own accounts.

With teens spending more hours on average on apps such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, there has been rising concern about their mental health and habits. Yet, laws like Section 230, prevent social media companies from facing the law and taking accountability for the state of play they’ve created.

However, years of apathy towards the situation have, to the surprise of many, have just been upended by a landmark ruling that may force social media companies into a future of compliance.

The seemingly impossible, has happened.


The New Mexico case

In 2023, the state’s Attorney General, Raúl Torrez and his team created fake profiles imitating kids aged 14 and under on Facebook and Instagram. They found that these accounts were quickly flooded with sexual solicitations, explicit images, and even messages from predators almost immediately.

The case concluded that the company knew about the lack of safety regulations of its platforms, and yet engaged in unconscionable trade practices, exploiting the vulnerabilities of children.

Testimony was also given stating that the company’s decision to implement of end-to-end encryption on Messenger blocked law enforcement from accessing crucial evidence needed to prosecute child exploitation. The state also argued that features like ‘infinite scroll’ and ‘autoplay’ on the apps were intentionally designed to keep minors hooked, contributing to mental health crises like addiction.

At the end of the trial, the court came to a momentous decision to fine Meta $375 million, amounting to $5,000 per violation, and you can bet the reparations won’t end there. With this recent shift in momentum, it’ll now be open season on social media tycoons.

Similar cases

Just days after New Mexico’s ruling, another case in the east in California found both Meta and YouTube liable for a negligible platform design that cultivates addiction in children. The case emphasised that features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and even algorithms seek only to hook kids with minimal effort to protect them.

This trial included over 1,800 consolidated suits by family and schools, lasted for more than seven weeks, and included several instances of testimony from Mark Zuckerberg. Proceedings ended with Meta being ordered to pay $3 million in compensation, and $3 million in punitive damages – which was a greater punishment than YouTube received.

But it doesn’t end here, however. Over 40 lawsuits are being filed by attorney generals across the US. From Northern California putting together over 2,400 claims to more companies like TikTok and Snap being dragged in the fight, a whole revolution is coming into play.

The least surprising development, however, is that big tech isn’t willingly surrendering to civic demands.

The appeals

After the New Mexico verdict was reached, Meta went on to call the ruling ‘disagreeable’ and stated its plans to appeal to the state’s appellate courts. The company argued that the case wrongfully applied consumer protection laws to platform design.

Over in California, the company also stated that it plans to challenge negligence findings from the case, while YouTube asserts that it doesn’t belong in the same conversations as social media sites.

On the mental health note, Meta went claims that teen mental health is something profoundly complex and influenced by factors outside of social media. In a lawsuit in LA, the company tried to blame the plaintiff’s difficult home life and parenting; a strategy which reportedly backfired with the jury.

Should the appeals succeed and the New Mexico and California rulings be overturned, all the momentum gained in the fight for accountability would be thrown out. Broad immunity under the Section 230 is the principle big tech is clinging to, and there’s certainly no intent to take accountability or change.

We’re at a major crossroads for social media, and the immediate future might just shape the world our children will one day live in.

Enjoyed this? Click here for more Gen Z focused tech stories.

Accessibility