"Addictive": Meta Platforms does not accept verdict
Meta's online services were grossly negligent, causing child addiction and damage. Meta denies liability, claiming trial was flawed.
(Image: suriyachan/Shutterstock.com)
Meta Platforms is fighting the multi-million dollar jury verdict that found the data group grossly negligent in designing its online services in such a way that children became addicted and psychologically damaged. Worse still: according to the verdict, Meta acted maliciously, doubling the damages to $4.2 million for a single plaintiff, known as K.G.M. Meta claims the trial was conducted incorrectly, and therefore the judge must overturn or at least annul the jury's verdict.
This is according to a filing with the competent court in the US state of California (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles). The data group is again invoking a norm known as Section 230 in US federal law. It grants immunity for content that website operators do not provide themselves, but which is posted by third parties (with irrelevant exceptions here). Meta had already argued this in an earlier phase of the proceedings -- unsuccessfully, as the lawsuit is not based on content, but on the product design created by Meta itself, including infinite scroll and autoplay videos.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The plaintiff is therefore relying on product liability, not on the liability for content limited by Section 230. However, Meta is now arguing that the evidence shown to the jury regularly linked the damages caused to the plaintiff with the content presented to her. Thus, it ultimately concerned content, which would mean Section 230 applies. And that would let the company off the hook. This is scheduled to be heard on June 4.
A similar appeal brief is expected by then from the Google Group Alphabet, which was ordered to pay $1.8 million in the same proceedings. Both companies have requested that the verdict be suspended for now. It is not known to the editors whether Meta and Alphabet will remove the functions identified as harmful in the court proceedings to protect children, regardless of the financial liability issue.
Precedent
As over a thousand parallel lawsuits by injured parties are pending in the USA, a lot is at stake. It is impossible for all lawsuits to be heard in court eventually. By then, many of the children would be retired. The court in LA has therefore selected three different cases for jury trials: KGM, RKC, and Moore. The settlement negotiations for most of the lawsuits are to be guided by these verdicts later on.
Videos by heise
Therefore, the losing data groups are trying all legal means to have the KGM verdict overturned. This includes an attack on the young woman's legal representatives. Meta and Alphabet accuse the opposing lawyers of having communicated directly with company officials instead of exclusively with their lawyers.
The California consolidated proceedings are officially titled Christina Arlington Smith individually and as successor-interest to Lalani Walton, deceased, et al vs Tiktok et al (Case No. 22STCV 2135, JCCP5255). The selected K.G.M. case is conducted as P. F. et al vs Meta Platforms et al, Case No. 23SMCV0 3371, and is also known as KGM v Meta et al.
(ds)
