What an LA County Court case means for the future of social media | Computer Weekly
Briefly

What an LA County Court case means for the future of social media | Computer Weekly
"In Summer 2023, a plaintiff known only by their initials "K.G.M." launched a case against Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap (owner of SnapChat). It was alleged that social media companies had engineered their sites to encourage their users to engage compulsively with platforms, which had caused the plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, body dysmorphia and depression as a child."
"Meta and Google asked for the case to be dismissed, but this was declined by the judge in November 2025. A month later, Snap and TikTok settled out of court. Despite Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Meta) and Adam Mosseri (CEO of the Meta-owned Instagram) testifying, the jury decided in favour of the plaintiff."
"As a result of the jury's decision, Meta and Google were found negligent in the design of their applications. The judge ordered the companies to compensate the plaintiff US$3m (more than £2.2m) damages and paya further US$3m in punitive damages, with Meta ordered to pay two-thirds of the damages."
"It is worth noting that the plaintiff focused their argument on the harm they suffered due to the design of the social media platforms and not on the content that was on the platforms. As a result, Section 230 of America's 1995 Communications Decency Act, which usually provides social media companies with immunity from prosecution, was not a viable defence in this case."
A plaintiff identified as K.G.M. sued Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap over alleged platform designs that encouraged compulsive use. The plaintiff claimed the design caused anxiety, body dysmorphia, and depression during childhood. Meta and Google sought dismissal, but the judge declined the request in November 2025. A month later, Snap and TikTok settled out of court. After testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, the jury ruled for the plaintiff. Meta and Google were found negligent in application design, and the judge ordered $3m in damages plus $3m in punitive damages, with Meta responsible for two-thirds. The claim focused on design harm rather than third-party content, limiting the usefulness of Section 230 immunity.
Read at ComputerWeekly.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]