Australian Law Firms Explore Legal Action After US Social Media Verdict
Australian law firms are actively investigating the potential for future legal cases in the wake of a landmark US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for deliberately designing addictive products. This development follows a jury verdict in Los Angeles that found both tech giants negligent and liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of their platforms.
Details of the US Ruling and Its Implications
The jury awarded the plaintiff, known as KGM, US$6 million in damages, to be split 70-30 between Meta and Google. KGM testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, leading to depression, self-harm, and diagnoses of body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia by age 13. This decision came just one day after Meta was ordered to pay US$375 million in civil penalties in a separate lawsuit in New Mexico, where a jury found the company misled consumers about platform safety.
While Meta and Google have stated they disagree with the ruling and plan to appeal, legal experts believe this verdict could have far-reaching global consequences. Lisa Flynn, chief legal officer at Shine Lawyers, described it as a watershed moment, indicating that courts are increasingly willing to hold tech giants responsible for real-world harm caused by their products.
Australian Legal Response and Industry Perspectives
Andy Wei, principal lawyer for class actions at Slater and Gordon, emphasized that the verdict represents a significant moment in the global scrutiny of social media platforms and their impact on young people. He noted that Australian law firms are closely monitoring overseas developments and assessing whether local laws provide avenues for accountability where harm has occurred.
Rebecca Gilsenan, national head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn, highlighted that the case demonstrates the law can be used to create accountability and guardrails for the harmful effects of big tech. Although Maurice Blackburn did not confirm if it is considering a specific case, the firm pointed to its ongoing class actions against Apple and Google over app store access as an example of challenging tech giants.
Expert Analysis on Social Media Responsibility
Associate Professor Stan Karanasios, a researcher of information systems at the University of Queensland, argued that the verdict marks a fundamental shift in how responsibility for social media harm is assigned. He stated that for too long, the burden has fallen on individuals and families to resist platforms consciously designed to be addictive, with features like infinite scroll and constant notifications serving as architecture for addiction.
Government Actions and Policy Developments
In response to growing concerns, the Albanese government has extended the definition of social media platforms that must comply with Australia's under-16s social media ban to include those with addictive features, such as infinite scroll and time-limited elements. Communications Minister Anika Wells criticized targeted algorithms and persistent notifications for stealing young people's attention.
The federal government has committed to legislating a digital duty of care, requiring platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. An initial survey on the proposal concluded in early December, but further steps have yet to be announced. Greens communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young advocated for new laws to force big tech giants to prevent harm proactively, rather than apologizing after damage occurs.
Meta declined to comment beyond its statement from the US ruling, and Google was approached for comment without response. As the conversation around social media harm and regulation accelerates in Australia, legal and policy frameworks are expected to evolve in alignment with global trends.
