Landmark social media trial could cost Meta $1trillion, Facebook whistleblower tells LBC

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

The tech giants were proved to have acted negligently after a 20-year-old woman in the US said her early use of social media made her addicted and her depression worse.

A jury sitting on the case at Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered the companies to pay $6 million in damages after she claimed that the technology exacerbated her mental health struggles.

Speaking to LBC, former Facebook employee-turned whistleblower, Frances Haugen, said the ruling could lead to "astronomical" figures being paid out by the companies.

Read more: Explained: The 'historic' social media ruling that could change the face of online safety forever

Read more: Keir Starmer ‘very keen’ for action on ‘addictive features within social media’

She told Tonight with Andrew Marr: "The numbers we're talking about here are astronomical. You know, you can look at a single case and say, oh, it's only $6 million in damages.

"But when applied across the number of children that have been harmed in the United States, we need a fraction of one per cent of children of teenagers in the US to be harmed, as this woman was, for it to equal a trillion dollars in damages.

"I think the question that's going to come out is what's the alternative? Meta didn't have to give up all of its money.

"It didn't have to be half as profitable to not do these damages. It needed to be five per cent less profitable.

"The question is, will they be allowed to continue to operate in the face of this level of mounting accountability?"

The plaintiff, whom lawyers called Kaley during the trial, said she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at nine, and told the jury she was on social media "all day long" as a child.

Meta and Google-owned YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap each settled before the trial began.

Jurors listened to about a month of lawyers' arguments and evidence, and they heard from Kaley herself, as well as Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri.

When asked by Andrew if she thinks it could reshape the industry going forward, Ms Haugen said: "I think there is a reckoning that is happening because now they see the magnitude of responsibility they may have foisted on them.

"Hopefully this will encourage longer-term optimisation, not chasing just those quick hits which lead to addictive algorithms".

She also agreed that a social media ban for under-16s could be the safest way forward.

Ms Haugan said: "I am not a prohibitionist because I do believe that we can build social media that is safe for kids.

"The challenge is in a world where they haven't shown an interest in building that social media, what do we as a society do to protect our kids until these platforms make good faith efforts to build appropriate spaces for kids online?

"I think considering across the board prohibition probably is the most constructive way forward."

Lawyers representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the respective defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley's harm.

They pointed to specific features they said were designed to "hook" young users, like the "infinite" nature of feeds that allowed for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and even notifications.

Juros were told not to take into account the content of the posts and videos that Kaley saw on the platforms, because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separately from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life.

Both companies have said they disagree with the jury's verdict and intend to appeal.