March marked a pivotal moment for the future of all those lawsuits that hold some of the most important companies in the industry, such as Meta, TikTok, and Google, accountable for the harmful consequences for users resulting from the use of their platforms. Two pivotal US decisions ordered Meta to pay significant damages to those affected, setting a precedent that will shape the continuation of not only other lawsuits in the United States but also around the world.
On March 24, a civil court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to protect underage users from online solicitation. The company was accused of endangering them by exposing them not only to inappropriate content but also to sexual predators.
The most alarming finding from the trial is that Meta was aware of the possibility that some of its underage users could be contacted by predators and yet failed to do everything possible to prevent it. This circumstance is part of the broader international debate on the protection of minors online and the due diligence obligations of digital platforms.
The following day, March 25, another trial against Meta concluded, perhaps even more significant than the first. The judge ordered the company to pay approximately $2 million to a young woman who had accused the platform of causing her depression and anxiety during her adolescence, as well as an addiction to Instagram. The lawsuit was initially filed against four entities: Meta, Google (for its YouTube platform), Snapchat, and TikTok. However, the latter two companies withdrew before the trial began, signing a confidential agreement with the plaintiff. This was to avoid what happened: the consolidation of a precedent that these platforms will not be able to easily overcome—and it's right that this not happen.
This ruling represents a significant turning point: the recognition of the additivity of these platforms by courts with such high media coverage completely overturns the norms, potentially marking the end of the era of social media as we know it, or at the very least requiring a profound regulatory and design overhaul. Other US courts will now have a precedent to guide their decisions, while courts around the world will be able to draw inspiration from this decision and also take strong stances against unlawful conduct by social media.
The Los Angeles ruling includes several key elements, which recur as key points in many of the numerous actions underway against this company, including the one brought by MOIGE, whose first hearing will be in Milan on May 14.
First, Meta's negligent behavior in designing its platforms is clearly stated. These platforms' algorithms are addictive, and Meta is not only aware of this—as revealed by internal documents—but appears to have actively pursued this goal: maximizing users' online time coincides with maximizing profits for the company, according to an economic model based on the attention economy, which has been extensively analyzed in academic literature and recent institutional reports.
These decisions mark a significant shift in approach to the issue of platforms' liability for the harm users suffer while using them. The key point emerging from the US case is that the focus has shifted to the algorithm, and therefore to the product itself. Indeed, while it is true that social media platforms function as a container that users fill and animate, it is equally true that the company itself—through the adoption of a specific algorithm—determines how they function and manages the circulation and distribution of content. Therefore, it is not a matter of stating that Meta is responsible for publishing a specific piece of content, but rather that it is responsible for which users view it, its (excessive) circulation, and the harmful consequences its viewing can cause, since it is no longer possible to define social media platforms as neutral hosting providers.
Another key theme of this ruling is the assertion of a consistent lack of information from these companies about the actual risks deriving from using their services. This, as already mentioned, is a fact widely known to those who manage and design the platforms, thus strengthening the arguments regarding the violation of transparency and information obligations towards users, particularly minors.
Well, now it only remains to be seen what the next moves will be of the other courts that will have to decide on these issues and what the reaction will be of the states and of the European, international, and supranational institutions, some of which had already begun to move in a similar direction even before these decisions.