Meta and YouTube asked a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to overturn the landmark jury verdict in March that found both social media companies were negligent in the design or operation of the platforms and failed to warn users of their dangers.
A jury determined that Meta must pay $4.2 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages, and YouTube must pay $1.8 million in the bellwether case brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M. who alleged that, beginning as a child, she developed severe depression, anxiety, and addiction-like behavior from using Instagram and YouTube.
As expected, Meta and Google’s YouTube are now appealing the verdicts, asking Judge Carolyn Kuhl to either throw out the charges or at least order a new trial.
In their appeal, the companies contend they are shielded from the plaintiff’s claims by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated or third party content. The defendants said that evidence presented at trial repeatedly tied the woman’s mental health challenges to the content she viewed, rather than the design features like autoplay and infinite scroll.
The companies also argued in their filings that the verdict violated the First Amendment, claiming it prohibits liability for the “features” of a social media platform.
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.
Responding to the appeal, the plaintiff’s legal representation team said they are “not surprised by these motions.”
“Meta and YouTube have raised these same arguments at every stage of this litigation, and we expect Judge Kuhl to reject them as she has before,” the team said. “The verdict in K.G.M reflects what the evidence showed: that these platforms knowingly caused serious harm to a child. We have no doubt the jury deliberated carefully and thoughtfully in this historical bellwether case.”