Summary Meta asks LA judge to overturn $4.2M verdict over woman’s depression, citing Section 230; case tests social media addiction claims amid nationwide lawsuits.
(Reuters) - Meta Platforms (META.O) has asked a Los Angeles judge to throw out a jury’s verdict finding the company liable for a woman’s depression in a landmark trial over whether the company has harmed young users by designing its platforms to be addictive.
In the filing, submitted on Monday but made public on Wednesday, Meta asked the judge who oversaw the trial to overturn the verdict and rule in its favor or order a new trial.
The jury in March found that Meta and YouTube parent Google (GOOGL.O) had been negligent in the design of their platforms and had failed to warn users of their dangers. The jury found Meta liable for $4.2 million in damages and Google for $1.8 million.
Google has also said it plans to appeal, and has asked the court to set aside the verdict against it or order a new trial. Snap (SNAP.N) and TikTok were also defendants in the lawsuit, but both settled with the plaintiff before the trial began.
In the filing, Meta argued that it was shielded from the claims brought by the woman, known as Kaley G.M., by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated content. It said that evidence presented at trial repeatedly tied Kaley's mental health challenges to the content she viewed, rather than the design features like autoplay and infinite scroll.
Attorneys for Kaley G.M. did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Meta, YouTube and other social media companies are facing thousands of similar lawsuits filed by individuals and families in both federal and state court, as well as lawsuits filed by school districts and states. The cases claim the companies designed their platforms to be addictive, spurring a nationwide mental health crisis among teens and young people.
The LA trial was a bellwether for the state court cases, meaning it is a test case that could help guide settlement discussions across the broader pool of lawsuits.
Lower court judges have largely rejected the companies’ efforts to argue Section 230 blocks the claims, but the interpretation of the law – which experts say could have broad implications for many types of internet companies – is likely to be a key feature of any appeal.
