GREGG JARRETT: Jury blames Meta, Google for teen harm-but appeal could crush case

Later in the day, the jury assigned $2.1 million in punitive damages against Meta and $900,000 against Google. That is a mere fraction of the $1 billion in punitive damages sought by the plaintiff.

Full disclosure-I own shares in both companies. Snapchat and TikTok were originally named as co-defendants but settled in advance of the trial.

Does the judgment now spell doom for the social media giants under an avalanche of thousands of other similar lawsuits? No. It is doubtful that the verdict will withstand the scrutiny of various appeals, particularly if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case was brought in state court by a 20-year-old California woman identified only as Kaley G.M. Her lawyers argued that Meta and Google targeted children by engineering their platforms to be harmfully addictive and by deploying algorithms to keep them hooked.

"I would just get really upset and sad and feel like I wasn't worthy, I guess," said Kaley. As her dependency grew, so did her insecurity. "Without my phone, I felt like a huge part of me was missing… without my phone, I couldn't see who was liking my stuff," she added.

By her own admission, Kaley's compulsive or obsessive reliance on social media was all about her engagement with its content posted by other users. That is the plaintiff's greatest obstacle during the inevitable appeal.

Why? Because in 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 provides that platforms cannot be held liable for the content posted on their sites. It is a form of immunity that has never been repealed.

In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld that legal protection by refusing to hold social media companies liable for harmful, user-generated content amplified by their algorithms. Since that is the core of the plaintiff's design defect theory against Meta and Google, the Justices would have to deviate significantly from their established view to uphold the verdict. That is unlikely.

Over several years, Kaley was treated by three therapists, none of whom ever diagnosed her with social media addiction. Instead, the documented evidence strongly suggested that her struggles coincided with a tumultuous home environment that included alleged physical and emotional abuse.

Moreover, the plaintiff's lawyers filed the case under the legal theory known as "product liability." They argued that Instagram and YouTube were defectively designed and operated and, therefore, inherently unsafe for young people.

There is persuasive evidence that Kaley misused social media by her incessant and chronic usage. Of course, just about anything done excessively carries the risk of harm. This is where the concept of personal responsibility comes into play.

Granted, a child cannot always be expected to make reasonable decisions. That is why parental oversight and control are crucial. But here, they seem to have been conspicuously absent.

If a child constantly binges on chocolate and then suffers obesity, or worse, is a company like Hersey to blame? No sensible person believes that chocolate bars are defectively designed to cause addiction because we rely on the exercise of common sense in moderation and self-restraint.

Producers of products are in the business of creating and selling goods that are attractive to consumers. But any product can be abused. Television shows and video games are comparable examples where the goal is to keep people engaged. It is not the responsibility of a producer to act as a personal guardian over each and every user. Where minors are involved, that duty rests with a vigilant and caring parent.

A sympathetic L.A. jury was swayed by the unfortunate plight of Kaley's young life. But shifting the blame from personal responsibility to a corporate scapegoat would set in motion an explosion of ruinous litigation by thousands of other plaintiffs that could cripple social media companies.

In the end, billions of active and responsible users would suffer the inevitable consequences.