Lawyer who sued Google & Meta for $6m hails UK social media ban as 'landmark moment' - but calls for tech giants to be financially punished
Matthew Bergman said the world was in the midst of a youth mental health crisis and called on financial punishments to hit the tech companies
A US lawyer who sued tech giants Meta and Google for $6 million in a historic case after they were found liable for social media addiction has told LBC the UK ban is a "landmark moment" and said tech firms must be hit in the pocket.
Listen to this article
Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims' Law Centre, represented a 20-year-old plaintiff in the US who said her early use of social media had addicted and exacerbated her mental health struggles.
A jury at the Los Angeles County Superior Court in March ordered to pay $6 million in damages to the woman, referred to as Kaley by her lawyers, with 70% to be paid by Meta, parent of Instagram and Facebook, and 30% by Google, which operates YouTube.
Speaking to LBC, Mr Bergman, who successfully led the lawsuit, described Monday's announcement by the Prime Minister as a "landmark moment" for the UK and that parents should take a "glass half full" approach.
He said: "We're in the midst of a youth mental health crisis that has international implications. It's a worldwide phenomenon.
"Parents who have lost their children have previously said they set what they thought were pretty strict rules to monitor their kids' social media use, so parents are doing their level best.
"Platforms do it by design, the addiction is not by accident.
"One of the issues is for example, Snapchat says you're under 18 you need parental consent to use this but what do they do to ascertain whether parental consent has been furnished?
"But it has to be implemented because there is absolutely no way that they can claim ignorance to what the age of their users are.
"Kids will be kids and it's not because they're bad kids. I didn't tell my parents everything I did when I was a teenager."
TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and Instagram are among the apps included in the UK ban which will take effect in Spring 2027.
A consultation, which was conducted this year and had more than 116,000 participants, revealed that 85% of parents believe the risk of social media outweighs any benefits.
Announcing the ban on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer said: "This is not something I do lightly, and I will not present it as cost-free, as if social media has brought no benefits to young people, because clearly that is wrong.
"But government is always about choices, and it's clear to me that a full ban is the right choice."
Objectors to the ban cited that 60% of under-16s in Australia still have access to the content, according to recent research by Molly Rose Foundation and YouthInsight, the country's largest online youth panel.
But in response, Mr Bergman argued: "I really want to recast the narrative of Australia.
"If there are 40% less kids on social media under 16, those are 40% less kids that are being sent suicidal content, anorexic content, and bullying. That's huge.
"If I could tell you that in the UK we could reduce bullying by 40%, you'd say, where do I sign up?
"It's very much to me a glass half full, not a glass half empty. The fact that we may not have 100% compliance, what law do you have 100% compliance to?
"You're never going to have 100% safety. You don't have cars that are 100% safe."
But in order to hold the tech companies to account, Mr Bergman said only financial penalties can be enforced to hold them to account.
"Regulation is important and we support it, but you could only regulate what you know about," he continued.
"Given the warp speed in which technology is developing, you have to impose upon the companies the financial risk of a bad decision.
"You have to provide families of children who are hurt with the opportunity to hold these companies financially accountable so that it will be more expensive for them to design dangerous products than safe products."
Mr Bergman's landmark victory in the US earlier this year paved the way for greater focus on a UK ban, and in recent months met with government ministers to share his experiences.
Last week, Google and Meta were denied a new trial after the companies claimed they were shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated content.
Rejecting the claims, Judge Carolyn Kuhl wrote: "There was substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform."
Reflecting on the historic case, Mr Bergman added: "It was the culmination of the first battle in a long war.
"It felt like we won the day the jury was impaneled because that was the first time that a company had ever been held accountable before a fair and impartial jury.
"But the result was a major step forward. But to quote my hero Winston Churchill, this isn't the end.
"This isn't the beginning of the end, but this is the end of the beginning."