Most social media platforms require users to be at least 13 years old, but surveys show that 40% of kids between eight and 12 use social media. Despite that widespread use by children, these platforms are largely unregulated at the federal level.
As a result, social media companies operate in a sort of gray zone: They’re expected to remove harmful content, but they’re generally not liable for what users post. But in a recent California trial, lawyers pushed past content guardrails and focused instead on how social media applications are designed to keep users scrolling.
In KGM v. Meta and YouTube, a woman accused major social media companies of designing their products to be addictive, especially to children. And a jury agreed, ordering the companies to pay $6 million in damages.
Joseph VanZandt, an attorney representing the woman, said social media became an obsession from a young age. He spoke with 90.5 WESA’s Kiley Koscinski.
Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You can hear more from local experts about resources to protect the mental health of young people by joining WESA for Mind Matters: Youth and Mental Health on Thursday at Commonwealth Charter Academy in Homestead. Event registration here.
Koscinski: Your client started using YouTube at age six and began posting her own videos to the site soon after. How often was she using the platform?
VanZandt: “I think by the time she was nine she had posted over 200 videos. And what really started to get her addicted early on was the social validation: the comments, the likes. She was so worried about people liking her content. I mean, that was really what built the addiction patterns in her brain. And then as a 9-year-old, she gets a hold of Instagram.”
What evidence do you think won the jury over to your side?
VanZandt: “Some of our best exhibits and best evidence were not Power Points we made. It was things that these companies made themselves. Their lawyers are standing up in court saying, ‘There’s no such thing as social media addiction,’ right? ‘It’s not a real diagnosis.’ Internally, they’re all talking about it. And [Meta and Google] do have some good people that work in their safety departments, people who are researching this and people who are raising these issues to the executives. But time and time again getting shut down.”
A lot of people are calling this a landmark verdict or a bellwether case. How does this verdict shift the landscape here when it comes to regulating social media companies?
VanZandt: “It is the first time that a jury — forget Congress, forget politicians — a jury of everyday Americans has heard how these companies … don’t value children. How they value their profits, how they value the growth of their company over the safety of children. It’s a referendum to companies that that’s just not acceptable. We have a jury saying that ‘Look, in our society, it is not reasonable, it is not acceptable for you to do what you’re doing to target children, to knowingly addict these children.’ It’s a huge win just for that alone.
In the broader context of the litigation, a lot of people think that this is a class action [lawsuit]. A lot of people think that this was the youth of America versus social media — that’s not it. All of these cases — there are over 4,000 personal injury cases — all of these are all individual lawsuits. That’s what this was. [KGM] is one of over 3,000 cases pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. There was a random selection process out of a thousand plaintiffs, the judge picked 24. … We did depositions and discovery, and eventually the judge selected nine cases for trial. We have nine trials lined up. KGM is just the first of those nine. So, this is really just the beginning.”
Lawmakers have been unsuccessful at reining in big tech companies and protecting children from the potential harm these platforms can cause. This issue has drawn a lot of comparisons to the lawsuits won against Big Tobacco in the 1990s. You’ve represented families suing e-cigarette companies. Do you see this as the same playbook?
VanZandt: “Sometimes the quickest way to bring about change is through the court system. It took decades of science development [and] studies showing that smoking was unhealthy, and then it took parents, schools and health care providers encouraging [people not to smoke.] Eventually you saw a sharp, sharp decrease in smoking rates. And that’s before there were any laws passed in Congress about it. So, there can be real change.
I think it’s all about bringing awareness to it. And I think we have a generation of parents who fortunately now know and see firsthand what these companies are willing to do and the risks to teenagers. And as a result, hopefully we’re cultivating a generation of children that will approach social media differently than before.”
This is the first of a new wave of personal injury lawsuits against these tech companies. This process will take time to play out. What can parents do now to shield their kids from the worst effects of social media?
“I feel fortunate, honestly, that my kids are as young as they are and that I know what I know now. You know, 10 years ago it may have been very different. It’s safe to say my kids won’t be getting social media anytime soon until they’re much older or smartphones for that matter. There are movements out there like, ‘Wait until 8th’ is a one that our school does, encouraging parents to not get their kids a smartphone until after eighth grade. And you get a lot of community buy-in from that, so your kids don’t feel left out that they don’t have a phone.
I feel fortunate to be in a generation of parents that we now have this knowledge. And so, I think it is going to be different for our kids.”
WESA’s Mind Matters mental health coverage is supported by a grant from The Staunton Farm Foundation.