YouTube has requested to overturn a precedent-setting social media addiction trial verdict in Los Angeles, arguing it was wrong to find the company was deliberately developing its services to addict young users without caring about their health.
Less than a week after Meta, the other defendant in the case, filed a notice of appeal in Los Angeles County Superior Court on 13th July, attorneys for YouTube sought the same. The attorneys are expected to make their argument in subsequent court documents about the appeal.
The case focused on a 20-year-old female complaining of a worsening of mental health issues and addiction to social media going back to childhood.
The negligence is “a significant cause” of the young woman’s harm, the jury determined, and it was equally Google’s own platform, YouTube, and Meta’s platform, Facebook, that played a role.
The jury has given her $3 million in damages and has recommended a further $3 million in punitive damages. Kaley’s attorneys, led by Mark Lanier, wrote in a statement last week after the company appealed that it is “hopeful that the appellate court will continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”
In a statement last week, Google spokesman Jose Castaneda stated that YouTube intended to appeal, and that “these are common motions in this case to expedite the case.”
Both Meta and Google had taken the initiative to file post-trial motions for a new trial. In early June, the trial judge, Carolyn B Kuhl, denied those motions.
One of the main defences it made in the five-month trial was that it is not a social media site, as it is a video-sharing and streaming site.
Counsel for both YouTube and Meta also continually raised concerns during the testimony about the extent to which the evidence and arguments infringed on legal rights of third parties who post content on the platforms.
Under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which was passed to limit liability of such companies if they facilitated the creation of controversial speech, Section 230 protects them from liability. The plaintiff’s lawyers instead focused on the design features like autoplay functions that they argued could lead to more long-lasting, less intentional use of the platforms.
The case was a landmark one for Kaley, and the decision may shape thousands of other lawsuits that allege social media companies are knowingly inflicting harm. Initially, the case included the names of TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., each of which settled for undisclosed amounts prior to a trial.
