Tim Powers: 

You have probably heard this story. Parents and campaign groups seeking tighter restrictions in social media have welcomed a Los Angeles jury handing down an unprecedented win for a young woman who sued Meta and YouTube over her childhood addiction to social media.

 

Tim Powers: 

Jurors found that Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, and Google, owner of YouTube intentionally built addictive social media platforms that harmed the 20- year- old’s mental health. The woman known as Kaylee was awarded, 6 million US dollars in damages as a result. A result likely to have implications for hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through US courts.

 

Tim Powers: 

Wanted to get our friend Kevin Andrews on about this, you know, Kevin, he does tech segment with, Jerry Lynn and Russ on Tuesdays.

 

Tim Powers: 

Kev, what are we to take away from the ruling and the decision on what it’s going to mean to the way, Meta and YouTube and others govern themselves and what governments may seek to do?

Kevin: 

Yeah, thanks for having me, Tim. It’s definitely being called a landmark case here because it’s one of the first major jury decisions to directly connect platform design with harm to a young user’s mental health. And I think for years the conversation has been more and moral, political, cultural, I think now it’s become legal. And so I think once a jury accepts that idea, that features like that infinite scroll, the auto play, the recommendation engines, the likes, the followers, the filters are not just neutral tools, but are now seen more like an addictive architecture.

“…features like that infinite scroll, the auto play, the recommendation engines, the likes, the followers, and the filters are not just neutral tools, they are now seen more like an addictive architecture”.

Kevin: 

I think that gives families and school districts and even governments more of a roadmap now. And I think that’s why people are using phrases like _” a landmark case”_, _”inflection point”_, _”a watershed”_ and I think, the dollar mill, like you mentioned before, it’s still small in comparison to these companies, but the legal theory is definitely much bigger there.

Tim Powers: 

Yeah, just to give this is from the BBC reporting of all of this. I’ll just read this and then we’ll continue our conversation. So, Kaylee the defendant who won the $6 millon dollars said she started using Instagram age nine and YouTube page 6 encountered no attempts to block her because of age. I stopped engaging with family because I was spending all my time on social media. She said during her testimony, she said she was 10 years old when she started having feelings of anxiety, depression, disorders for which she would be diagnosed years later by a therapist. She also started to obsess with her physical appearance and began using Instagram filters that would change the way she looked, making her nose smaller and her eyes bigger. She’s since been diagnosed with body dysmorphia, and it goes on from there. Meta and Google argue well, that you can’t make it as linear as saying it was the social media that made her do it, that argument wasn’t born out of rewarding of this.

Tim Powers: 

Also, where are governments likely to go now? The British government reacted quickly. Our AI minister, Evan Solomon was talking yesterday about the need to protect kids, and that Canada was gonna do that. Where do you think this goes from the government legislative perspective, Kevin?

Kevin: 

You definitely see a few things moving here. One is stronger age verification. Another is warning labels or clear public health style messaging about these risks. You might see tighter rules around auto play option, recommendation engines or even the design features aimed at children and specifically teens. There’s a broader idea that social media may increasingly be treated like other regulated consumer products. We already do have that with cars and seat belts and alcohol and tobacco so I think the question becomes if a product has predictable risks, especially for minors, why shouldn’t it face safety rules as well? I think this could move beyond the courtroom. Courts can establish responsibility, but the lawmakers may still need to do the heavy lifting here. If people want widespread structural changes.

“Courts can establish responsibility, but the lawmakers may still need to do the heavy lifting here. If people want widespread structural changes”.

Tim Powers: 

You’re a parent, you’re a teacher? How do we hear this as a parent and how do we hear this as a teacher?

Kevin: 

I think this is where it becomes real. In the classroom you can see the effect in attention span, patience and tolerance for anything that isn’t instant stimulating. You notice that sustained focus is definitely harder with the students. I’ve been teaching for 30 years, and I can definitely see that change. Working through something that is challenging without an immediate payoff is a lot harder for a lot of students. And I think for teachers, that’s one of the biggest frustrations. We’re not just teaching curriculum anymore, we’re also trying to rebuild that attention. We’re also trying to rebuild self-regulation and really the ability to stay with the task. So when people talk about social media harm, for teachers, it’s not that abstract, we see these pieces in real time in the classroom.

Tim Powers: 

Now, as you say, this is probably gonna change the litigation environment in the US. There’ll be more of these decisions. But what’s the biggest takeaway from all of this then?

Kevin: 

You should really keep in mind that we’re entering a new phase in conversation about social media. And I think for years the burden has mostly been on users, parents, and schools.

Kevin: 

This case suggests the design of the platforms themselves finally becoming under real legal scrutiny. That’s a big shift because once you start saying a product’s architecture creates harm, you are no longer just debating habits of parenting, you’re debating responsibility, liability, and regulation from that company itself. That’s why this feels bigger than just one case and one payout. It’s really the start of a deeper reckoning over what these platforms are, what they do, and what responsibility comes with building it.

“…once you start saying a product’s architecture creates harm, you are no longer just debating habits of parenting, you’re debating responsibility, liability, and regulation from that company itself”.

Tim Powers: 

Let’s hope so because again, from the parent side, as somebody who will pick up a son in a few hours, and the first thing he’s gonna want to do is get on a screen and I’ll allow that for a little bit, and we’re gonna have our normal argument about why he can only have this much time and it doesn’t hurt me dad. It’s very tiring. It’s a threat that, uh, that never goes away and you’re constantly fighting over it.

Tim Powers: 

Kev, appreciate the time as always. Thank you for your insight.

Kevin: 

Thanks Tim. We’ll keep watching this one for sure.