Big Tech critics hail ‘Big Tobacco moment’ in landmark social media verdict
Big Tech critics hail ‘Big Tobacco moment’ in landmark social media verdict
The social media addiction trial’s verdict on Wednesday has long been anticipated by Meta and Google critics. Parents, child safety advocates, and certain legislators emphasized that the court’s decision marked a significant shift in holding these tech giants accountable for their influence on youth. Sarah Gardner, CEO of Heat Initiative, a newly established organization focused on challenging large technology companies, called the finding a “long-overdue step toward truth, justice, and accountability.”
“For the parents whose children died due to social media-related harms, today’s verdict is a huge step toward truth, justice, and accountability,” said Gardner. She likened the ruling to “social media’s Big Tobacco moment — the harm these companies intentionally cause children has been proven in a court of law.”
Alvaro Bedoya, a former Federal Trade Commission commissioner under Biden, noted on X that “a jury of ordinary people has achieved what Congress and state legislatures have struggled to do: holding Meta and Google accountable for addicting young people to their products.” The case revolved around allegations that these companies intentionally crafted addictive features on their platforms, keeping younger users engaged while negatively impacting their mental health.
Despite their investments in safety tools for minors, both Meta and Google expressed their intent to appeal the decision. Meta stated, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal.” The company argued that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be solely attributed to a single app,” highlighting the multifaceted nature of the issue. Google echoed this sentiment, with spokesperson José Castañeda claiming, “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
The plaintiff, Kaley (also known as KGM), alleged that excessive use of the platforms led to anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts. Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Anxious Generation” and a leading voice in the movement for phone-free schools, praised the ruling as “a new era in the fight to protect children from online harms.” He attributed the outcome to the efforts of families, particularly those who “endured a painful legal process so that other children might be spared.”
Several parents who believed their children’s deaths were linked to social media attended the trial in Los Angeles, drawing attention to the ongoing risks they perceive for families globally. Parents for Safe Online Spaces, a group advocating for the Kids Online Safety Act, called the decision a “rare and momentous win” in a prolonged campaign. “Finally, a jury said, enough,” the organization remarked. “Social media companies can no longer act with such indifference to the health of their youngest users. They are now being made to pay for their greed.”
The Kids Online Safety Act, which has been proposed in various forms for years, remains stalled in Congress. Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, a key supporter of the bill, argued that the verdict should push the legislation forward. “Now that Big Tech has been found liable for the harms they have inflicted on our children, it’s time for Congress to enshrine protections for American families into law,” she stated. Similarly, Democratic Senator Ed Markey, who has promoted his own child online safety bill, asserted that “Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment has arrived.” He stressed the need for Congress to “impose real guardrails on these platforms,” adding that “the courthouse alone cannot suffice.”
