Google and Meta have to pay 6 million

[Messy]

Crazy

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s...rs concluded that Meta,for 70% of that amount.

A California jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google's YouTube were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child, awarding her $6 million in a rare verdict holding Silicon Valley accountable for its role in fueling a youth mental health crisis.

The jurors concluded that Meta and Google should pay the woman $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta on the hook for 70% of that amount.

 

[Pepper]

What responsibility do her parents have? Small children must be supervised by adults.

 

[CallMeKate]

I see a gigantic can of worms opening here... and a precedent set for a *lot* of copycats. @Pepper is right... who wasn't watching a kid on social media so long that this could happen? And how could it be proven that it was actually those places that gave her depression and anxiety?! Bad, bad ruling in my eyes.

 

[Aunt Bea]

No surprise.

 

[HoneyNut]

I suppose the 6 million pales in comparison to the 235 million from the New Mexico lawsuit. But I think I trust the juries decision that intentionally designing the platforms and features to be addictive to children when they knew it was harming them was not acceptable.

 

[HoneyNut]

No surprise.

View attachment 493519

I thought about that hot coffee case too when I read this thread! I remembered how the jury of the hot coffee case was the reason the judgement was so high for the old lady whose skin was burned off, and how they based the guilty verdict on McDonald's selling coffee significantly hotter than normal (forget, maybe 10 degrees hotter) and having ignored many prior burn injury complaints.

 

[RambleTamble]

They'll appeal it and hopefully, it will be overturned. Unless they're breaking the law in some way, they shouldn't be held liable for anything.

 

[Aunt Bea]

It would be nice if there was some way to opt out of the algorithms that Facebook uses to select content for individual users.

I find the selection of reels, memes, products, webpages, etc… to be annoying and I can understand how they might become addictive to some people but all sorts of things are harmful to some people and relatively harmless to others.

I’m fairly certain that someday it may be an option for a monthly subscription or annual membership fee.

 

[RambleTamble]

I've wasted quite a bit of time on Facebook watching addictive videos. Maybe I should sue them for the time they made me waste since I had no choice but to watch them. I was addicted! Addicted, I tell ya!!!

 

[Messy]

It would be nice if there was some way to opt out of the algorithms that Facebook uses to select content for individual users.

I find the selection of reels, memes, products, webpages, etc… to be annoying and I can understand how they might become addictive to some people but all sorts of things are harmful to some people and relatively harmless to others.

I’m fairly certain that someday it may be an option for a monthly subscription or annual membership fee.

I just keep getting what I gave a like. I put annoying stuff on: I don't want to see this, but I have recently liked some long history stories and now it's like: oh you like this? Here are 500 more LOL.

 

[Sunkist]

No surprise.

View attachment 493519

If you think that's idiotic, did you hear about this?:

Hershey's hit with $5MILLION lawsuit by Florida woman over 'misleading' Reese's Halloween candy - packs showed treats had Jack-o-Lantern faces on them when they did not​

• Cynthia Kelly bought a pack of Reese's peanut butter pumpkins in October
• She says she would not have purchased the candy if she knew it didn't come with the carved out face advertised on the packaging
• A class-action lawsuit now seeks to recover $5 million in damages for customers in Florida who purchased the affected Reese's products

Hershey's slapped with $5MILLION lawsuit over deceptive advertising

 

[Jeni]

Big headlines at first ....... then when appealed and reversed small footnote somewhere.

Reality is missed here..... too many want to sue thinking it is a get rich quick prospect. Most do not realize that is not true... years of back and forth will billable lawyer hours going up and up and up. Might end up with your parking for court paid for.

Besides providing the device to access social media...... the parents paid for internet maybe it was their internet providers fault too..?
Can we sue kid's friends or their parents if peers post photos about things they have our child doesn't have ... that may depress them ?

If someone is addicted ..
not all who have wine with dinner become alcoholics ... some do .....
not all who tried smoking become a life long heavy smoker.
not all feel bad about themselves and depressed by seeing other people posts or posed lives.

where is personal responsibility? mental health is not something people can see or measure.

 

[WhatInThe]

I see a gigantic can of worms opening here... and a precedent set for a *lot* of copycats. @Pepper is right... who wasn't watching a kid on social media so long that this could happen? And how could it be proven that it was actually those places that gave her depression and anxiety?! Bad, bad ruling in my eyes.

It's already been happening. The video game industry has been and is being sued for similar. Addictive platforms and sexual exploitation of minors.

Roblox sued by Chicago-area father after son groomed by online predator: court docs

https://www.kark.com/news/state-new...behaviors-they-say-their-child-has-developed/

 

[Messy]

-

 

[HoneyNut]

who wasn't watching a kid on social media so long that this could happen?

Do you not think products should be safe for children? The lawsuit was about how the companies are intentionally designing their products so that kids cannot stop using them. So it is like how swimming pools have to be fenced because they are so attractive to kids and then some neighbor creates a pool intentionally designed to attract the kids (colorful slides, puppies to play with, etc) and then says the parents should have been watching them.

I think it is great that some accountability is being turned onto the media companies.

 

[George1959]

Crazy

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict#:~:text=The jurors concluded that Meta,for 70% of that amount.

A California jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google's YouTube were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child, awarding her $6 million in a rare verdict holding Silicon Valley accountable for its role in fueling a youth mental health crisis.

The jurors concluded that Meta and Google should pay the woman $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta on the hook for 70% of that amount.

Big headlines at first ....... then when appealed and reversed small footnote somewhere.

Reality is missed here..... too many want to sue thinking it is a get rich quick prospect. Most do not realize that is not true... years of back and forth will billable lawyer hours going up and up and up. Might end up with your parking for court paid for.

Besides providing the device to access social media...... the parents paid for internet maybe it was their internet providers fault too..?
Can we sue kid's friends or their parents if peers post photos about things they have our child doesn't have ... that may depress them ?

If someone is addicted ..
not all who have wine with dinner become alcoholics ... some do .....
not all who tried smoking become a life long heavy smoker.
not all feel bad about themselves and depressed by seeing other people posts or posed lives.

where is personal responsibility? mental health is not something people can see or measure.

I completly agree with you.