WEBVTT - Meta Social Media Addiction Trial 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.960 --> 0:00:13.039 It's the very definition of a high stakes trial. Dozens 0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:17.360 of state attorneys general are suing Meta, claiming it uses 0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:23.759 unprecedented technology to entice, engage, and ensnare teenagers and children, 0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:28.760 harming their mental health. At stake a damages claim of 0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:33.400 one point four trillion dollars, very close to the social 0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:39.159 media giant's market cap, plus the imposition of fundamental structural 0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.680 changes to the platform. The trial is the latest in 0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:47.800 an avalanche of lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, 0:00:47.880 --> 0:00:53.600 including Google's YouTube, TikTok and snap overclaims their platforms harm 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:58.400 young people, illegally collect their data, and are deliberately designed 0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:02.640 to addict them. My guest is an expert in internet law, 0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:07.000 Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of 0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:11.600 Law and co director of the High Tech Law Institute. Eric, 0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.880 this is a very high stakes trial. Tell us what's 0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:15.800 at stake here? 0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:19.600 In this trial, the state attorneys general are pursuing the 0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:23.080 social media defendants for a number of claims, including claiming 0:01:23.080 --> 0:01:26.640 that they are a public nuisance. The state attorneys general 0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:31.199 have asked for one point four trillion dollars worth of damages, which, 0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:36.240 if issued, would represent a major chunk of the overall 0:01:36.360 --> 0:01:41.119 value that those entities are worth. The case also potentially 0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:45.920 puts in play structural remedies that would change how social 0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:51.360 media services operate. So between the damages of words and 0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:55.680 the possibility of structural reform, it's possible that these cases 0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:57.720 will change social media structurally. 0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:01.960 The State Attorney's General law saying that Meta designed the 0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:07.160 platforms to get children and teenagers hooked, tell us more 0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:08.760 about the allegations here. 0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:11.400 There's a lot of allegations, so it's a little hard 0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.400 to summarize. You hinted at one of them. The State 0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:17.840 of the Attorneys General are arguing that social media services 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:20.880 were designed to be addictive, in fact addicted the users, 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.480 and that addiction caused harm. They've also claimed, for example, 0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:29.040 that the social media services knew about that addictive attributes 0:02:29.080 --> 0:02:32.040 and harm and failed to disclose it to the public, 0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:36.600 and they're also claiming that the consequences of this addiction 0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:38.600 are harming society generally. 0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:43.959 Obviously, Meta denies the allegations. What specifically has it said, And. 0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:46.320 I just want to point out that you keep using 0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:49.679 term meta there are multiple social media services in play here, 0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.600 so just want to be clear about that. The social 0:02:52.639 --> 0:02:55.519 media defendives are depending on a wide range of grounds. 0:02:55.600 --> 0:03:00.520 They're depending on the position that this aims that are 0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:05.320 being advanced against them simply don't fit the facts. What 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:09.560 the social media services have done is not illegal, and 0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.280 therefore there should be no remedy for it. They have 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.840 argued that the First Amendment applies to their decisions. That 0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:21.079 they're acting like publishers, making editorial decisions and basing liability 0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:24.240 on those editorial decisions is in consists of the First Amendment, 0:03:24.760 --> 0:03:28.320 and they're claiming that Section two thirty applies. Section two 0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:31.400 there says websites are liable for third party content, and 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:35.640 a lot of the arguments about addiction are ultimately about 0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:39.280 the delivery of third party content, and therefore the social 0:03:39.280 --> 0:03:43.000 media defendants argue that Section two thirty should preempt those claims. 0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:46.720 So I hear seven weeks of trial, how do the 0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:51.040 state ags go about trying to prove their claim A 0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:54.560 we're going to hear from individual teenagers or are we 0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:57.920 going to hear from experts in social media? I mean, 0:03:58.120 --> 0:03:59.920 what kind of witnesses will they use? 0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:03.240 I think that they all use a variety of different 0:04:03.320 --> 0:04:07.360 experts who will try to bolst the argument that the 0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:13.240 social media services engaged in addictive practices and in fact 0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:18.840 caused harm. Both of those propositions are not scientifically established. 0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:22.400 The state ags will have to make a case for them. 0:04:22.640 --> 0:04:25.960 I would assume that we will hear from individual victims. 0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.560 We might also hear from former company employees who have 0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:32.320 inside information, and maybe others. 0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:37.400 So far, it seems like Meta hasn't fared well before juries. 0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:40.800 You had the case that we talked about before, where 0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:44.359 Los Angeles in state court a jury awarded a woman 0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:48.960 six million dollars in a case involving claims at Meta 0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:51.920 and Google's YouTube costs or anxiety and depression. And then 0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:56.280 we had this new Mexico jury, which, deliberating less than 0:04:56.279 --> 0:04:59.440 a day, awarded three hundred and seventy five million dollars 0:04:59.480 --> 0:05:02.440 in civil penalties, and then last week the judge added 0:05:02.480 --> 0:05:07.200 on additional five hundred and sixty seven million. Is Meta 0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:10.840 on the losing end. So far, of all these trials. 0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:13.400 The cases are not going well for Meta, or for 0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:16.960 that matter, for other social media defendants. The judges and 0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:21.320 the juries have generally looked disfavorably on the arguments that 0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:25.000 they're making. However, these cases are all going to go 0:05:25.160 --> 0:05:29.720 up on appeal, and there's no reason to believe that 0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:34.240 the jury or judge verdicts are going to survive intact. 0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.360 There are a number of good arguments that the defendants 0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.120 will make on appeal, and if they can succeed on 0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:43.680 any one of those arguments, it's possible that some or 0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:47.320 all of the lower court rulings will be undone. So 0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:49.479 I haven't put a lot of stock in where we 0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:53.360 stand today. Other than a data points. The juries are 0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:56.880 sending a message that they do hold social media services 0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:02.520 culpable for harming their users. Whether or not the law 0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:06.719 recognizes that harm and upholds the legal consequences that have 0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:09.400 been signed to it remains to be seen on appeal. 0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:12.960 Is the strongest argument on appeal that the social media 0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:18.040 platforms have had immunity from prosecution over the content that 0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:22.080 users post, and states are trying to sidestep that by 0:06:22.120 --> 0:06:24.320 going after the product design features. 0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:27.800 I think there are several strong arguments that will be 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:31.520 advanced on appeal and this case, and in frankly all 0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:34.760 of the cases. Section two thirty is one of those. 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:38.080 Section two thirty says that the services can't be responsible 0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.720 for their party content and ultimately, given that their basic 0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:45.000 business is the delivery of their party content, Section two 0:06:45.080 --> 0:06:47.599 very clearly casts a long shadow. But I think the 0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:51.800 First Amendment arguments are even more obvious and in some 0:06:51.839 --> 0:06:55.960 respects even more troubling. In the end, social media services 0:06:56.040 --> 0:07:01.000 are engaging in publication of content. It's third party content 0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:03.960 or first party content. The First Amendment applies equally in 0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:08.279 that circumstance. As a result, to the extent that social 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:12.880 media defendants are being held legally liable for their editorial decisions, 0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:15.080 that sounds like a problem, and that sounds like the 0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:17.320 kind of thing that an Mpella court won't pay attention to. 0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:23.679 The damages of one point four trillion dollars. Meta's market 0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:26.760 cap is one point five trillion. I mean, where does 0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:28.440 that number come from? 0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:32.200 The number might have a little bit of fiction to it, 0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:36.880 It might be a fantasy land computation, but it doesn't 0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.120 really matter if that number is the right number. It 0:07:40.360 --> 0:07:43.760 really is more the order of magnitude of the state 0:07:43.840 --> 0:07:48.559 attorney's general position. They are saying that if the social 0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:52.280 media services are causing as much or more damage as 0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:56.800 their market cap, they literally shouldn't exist. They're basically trying 0:07:56.840 --> 0:08:00.600 to drive the value of those companies to your zero. 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:03.200 And so that's why I think that the number is 0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:06.160 so helpful of crystallizing the stakes of this case. It's 0:08:06.200 --> 0:08:09.840 a reminder that the arguments that state ages are advancing 0:08:10.360 --> 0:08:15.800 potentially make social media services untenable, not profitable, and maybe 0:08:16.040 --> 0:08:17.720 no longer a viable market. 0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:23.400 They're also demanding changes. Besides this staggering sum are the 0:08:23.640 --> 0:08:28.040 changes to the platforms that the state ages are asking for? 0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:31.880 Would they change? You know, the very essence of the 0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:35.040 way these companies social media platforms work. 0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:40.120 Unquestionably, the structural remus that are being ordered by courts 0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:45.560 and also mandated by legislatures will change how social media operates. 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.360 What's less clear today is that they're going to change 0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:53.240 it in a way that will materially affect our willingness 0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:55.200 to use them. And I'm going to give you an 0:08:55.240 --> 0:08:58.360 example because I think it's so helpful. The New Mexico 0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:02.360 judge said cap on the number of hours that a 0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:05.640 user could use the service in a month. Now, that 0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:08.240 cap was pretty generous. That's a lot of hours. I 0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:10.960 think it was ninety, but imagine that a different judge 0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:13.960 based on some other assessment of the science, such that 0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:16.680 any of these decisions are based on that. Besides that 0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:19.400 the number is much much lower. Let's pick a number 0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:21.760 for a moment. It says that only five hours a 0:09:21.800 --> 0:09:25.600 month is permissible. At that point, then many users will 0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:28.440 no longer be able to engage in the community the 0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:32.720 way they're currently engaging, and it'll just starve the ecosystem 0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:35.480 for the engagement that's been driving it. There'll be less 0:09:35.480 --> 0:09:38.080 people there, they'll be contributing less, there'll be less people 0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:41.200 to consume it, and as a result, the ecosystem goes 0:09:41.240 --> 0:09:44.600 into a death spiral. It just can no longer function 0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:48.439 as the kind of vibrant conversation that we've assumed. Now, 0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:51.079 I'm just giving you a speculative scenario. I don't know 0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:52.920 if that stario is going to play out, but it's 0:09:52.920 --> 0:09:57.760 helpful to show how one small product change ordered by 0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:03.240 a court or legislature could would easily trigger a downward spiral, 0:10:03.640 --> 0:10:06.560 and multiply that by the dozens, if not hundreds, of 0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:10.960 different product changes that courts could issue or that legislatures 0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:15.000 have already mandated, and we can see that the ecosystem 0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:18.080 is under extraordinary pressure and may not survive it. 0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:22.720 So Meta, as we said, broadly denies the allegations. But 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:25.760 they also say that social media addiction is not a 0:10:25.800 --> 0:10:27.920 recognized psychiatric condition. 0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:34.319 That's correct. There is no medical recognition or psychological recognition 0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:37.960 of a thing called social media addiction. That argument was 0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:41.800 in play in the Los Angeles Bell Weather trial, and 0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:47.560 the jury was convinced enough that something was recognizable sufficient 0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:50.440 to support the damage as award that they issued. Having 0:10:50.480 --> 0:10:53.520 said that, it's a reminder that the science here is 0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:58.200 actually quite contested and may not back up the arguments 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:01.120 that the State Attorney's General are making. In other words, 0:11:01.360 --> 0:11:03.880 their general position in social media is and evil. It 0:11:04.000 --> 0:11:07.840 just harms people. It's laying waste to people's lives and 0:11:07.880 --> 0:11:10.520 our communities, and the science just doesn't back that up 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:14.160 at all. And so they're having to create a scientific 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:18.280 fiction a thing called social medi addiction that's not recognized elsewhere, 0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:21.959 and then predicating legal consequences on that. That's one of 0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:24.160 the kinds of things that could also be addressed on appeal. 0:11:24.320 --> 0:11:26.720 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:31.200 this conversation with Professor Eric Goleman of Santa Clara University 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.840 Law School. The jury's being picked today, but it's only 0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:38.880 an advisory jury. Will tell you what that means. I'm 0:11:38.960 --> 0:11:45.920 June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Jury selection began 0:11:46.040 --> 0:11:51.520 today in Meta's federal trial overclaims its platforms have harmed 0:11:51.520 --> 0:11:55.680 youth mental health and also track children in violation of 0:11:55.760 --> 0:11:59.760 federal law. The trial itself is scheduled to begin next 0:12:00.360 --> 0:12:03.720 and is expected to last six to eight weeks. Meta 0:12:03.720 --> 0:12:07.679 faces twenty nine states and the federal multi district lawsuit 0:12:07.800 --> 0:12:11.760 filed in twenty twenty three, but the Oakland trial will 0:12:11.760 --> 0:12:16.880 only include the first four states California, Colorado, Kentucky, and 0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:20.800 New Jersey. I've been talking to Professor Eric Goldman of 0:12:20.840 --> 0:12:25.880 Santa Clara University Law School and expert in internet law. Eric, 0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:28.400 when I look at the claims on both sides in 0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:33.600 these social media addiction trials sort of clinically just on paper, 0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:37.520 I wonder if these multimillion dollar verdicts are due to 0:12:38.360 --> 0:12:43.319 a jury sympathizing with these teenagers who are struggling with 0:12:43.559 --> 0:12:46.880 terrible mental health problems, when on the other side you 0:12:47.000 --> 0:12:50.800 have these huge social media companies you know, it's just 0:12:50.880 --> 0:12:53.880 like the sympathy factor of a jury as opposed to 0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:56.480 if this were maybe a judge trial. 0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.840 Well, two things about that. First, I will remind you 0:12:59.880 --> 0:13:03.240 that in the Los Angeles Bell Weather trial, the jury 0:13:03.320 --> 0:13:05.560 was non unanimous. It was a ten to two decision, 0:13:05.800 --> 0:13:08.920 and that's a sign that not all the jurors are 0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:11.880 onboard with the arguments that they're hearing, even if they 0:13:11.880 --> 0:13:15.840 feel extraordinary sympathy towards any particular victim. Now, in the 0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:20.160 State AG case is starting, the judge is actually going 0:13:20.200 --> 0:13:24.000 to make all decisions. She's appointed an advisory jury to 0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:27.320 give her input on certain things, but the judge will 0:13:27.320 --> 0:13:31.559 make the final call about the arguments. And so it's 0:13:31.720 --> 0:13:35.760 extent that it's a jury who has their passions inflamed 0:13:35.800 --> 0:13:39.560 by harmed victim. The State AG case might look different. 0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:42.320 I will also add in the State AG case, the 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:46.040 attorneys general are speaking on behalf of the entire community, 0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:51.120 which actually waters down the impact of any individual victim's story. 0:13:51.760 --> 0:13:57.360 This judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, also used an advisory jury 0:13:57.520 --> 0:14:02.200 in the Elon Musk sam All trial. It's very rare, 0:14:02.880 --> 0:14:05.960 and she's using it in this huge case. Are there 0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:08.680 any problems with using an advisory jury. 0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:11.360 I must confess I'm not a civil proceduralist, so I 0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:14.720 don't know what the rules are about advisory juries. I 0:14:14.800 --> 0:14:17.959 have heard of them before, and I think part of 0:14:18.080 --> 0:14:22.480 the judge's consideration is the judge doesn't necessarily want to 0:14:22.480 --> 0:14:25.840 just rely on her own position. She'd like to hear 0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:28.640 how the community is feeling about the arguments that they're hearing. 0:14:28.960 --> 0:14:31.600 And that makes sense to me because the cases are 0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.840 really about the social media is impact on the community, 0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:38.120 and the judge may not even be a heavy social 0:14:38.160 --> 0:14:40.840 media user, may not have the kinds of experiences that 0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:41.680 the jury does. 0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:46.400 There's always a possibility of settlement. Settlement is always a possibility, 0:14:46.800 --> 0:14:50.480 and Bloomberg Intelligence looking at major big tech settlements in 0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:55.280 the past decade, like Meta's five billion dollar deal with 0:14:55.360 --> 0:15:00.360 the FTC and Amazon's two point five billion dollars deal 0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:05.000 with the FTC, so BI estimates a possible settlement of 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:09.400 between four and seven billion dollars in this case. What 0:15:09.480 --> 0:15:10.600 do you think to be. 0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:14.920 Honest, I think if Meta, speaking just about Meta, if 0:15:15.040 --> 0:15:17.440 Meta thought it could settle this case for seven million 0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:20.960 dollars and avoid all future liability, it'd probably write that 0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:23.680 check happily. But I don't think those are the right numbers, 0:15:23.680 --> 0:15:26.600 so it sounds very low. I'm guessing that both the 0:15:26.600 --> 0:15:29.880 state ags and the other plaintiffs in cling individual plaintiffs 0:15:30.440 --> 0:15:33.360 have much higher numbers. Of mind. Remember though, in the 0:15:33.360 --> 0:15:37.440 Bellwether trial, I believe that the one plaintiff in the 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:40.160 first bell Weather asked for one hundred billion dollars. 0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:43.720 She ended up with not that much, though the verdict 0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:45.080 was six million dollars. 0:15:45.480 --> 0:15:47.880 Right, So going back to the evaluation, you know, how 0:15:47.920 --> 0:15:50.720 much is each case worth? And I will note that 0:15:51.000 --> 0:15:53.240 if there are and we're going to pick a number 0:15:53.280 --> 0:15:56.920 for a moment, there are three thousand victims who are 0:15:57.000 --> 0:16:00.920 in either the state or federal casalide cases. If the 0:16:01.000 --> 0:16:03.440 number three thousand, which might be lot overstated, but work 0:16:03.480 --> 0:16:06.000 with me. If the number is three thousand victims and 0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:09.360 each was worth six million dollars, which is the number 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:11.720 we got from the first bell windrowal, that's actually closer 0:16:11.760 --> 0:16:14.720 to twenty billion dollars. That's just for the individual victims, 0:16:14.840 --> 0:16:18.520 not the state ags, not the Native American tribes. You know, 0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:22.240 single digit billion number is probably quite low. If the 0:16:22.240 --> 0:16:24.240 parties are going to settle, but I don't think that 0:16:24.560 --> 0:16:27.440 they're likely to settle. And there's two reasons why. I'm 0:16:27.440 --> 0:16:29.640 guessing the social media defendants are hopefully that they can 0:16:29.720 --> 0:16:33.000 knock out big chunks of the case on appeal. And also, 0:16:33.520 --> 0:16:36.280 a settlement would need to be global in nature. It 0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:40.160 would have to deal with all victims who might have 0:16:40.240 --> 0:16:43.960 a claim, and there's not a clear path by which 0:16:44.080 --> 0:16:48.880 the social media defendants can put all potential victims into 0:16:49.040 --> 0:16:53.120 a single settlement, and without a mechanism to do that, 0:16:53.520 --> 0:16:55.320 I think settlement is actually quite remote. 0:16:55.880 --> 0:16:59.960 This lawsuit is one of more than three thousand five 0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:03.960 filed by school districts, individuals, and others in federal court, 0:17:04.320 --> 0:17:07.320 and then there are a second group of more than 0:17:07.359 --> 0:17:12.000 three thousand in state court. Historically, is there another kind 0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:16.560 of mass tort litigation you could compare this to maybe 0:17:16.640 --> 0:17:17.760 the tobacco litigation. 0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:22.720 Yeah, we've had other mass tortue claims. Asbestos is one 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:26.320 of them, tobacco is another. I don't have an inventory them, 0:17:26.359 --> 0:17:30.960 but they happen, and they're extraordinarily high stakes for both 0:17:31.000 --> 0:17:34.800 the plaintiffs and the defendants. The numbers boggle our mind 0:17:34.880 --> 0:17:37.119 in terms of the amount of wealth that's going to 0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:40.760 be moved one way or another, and this case fits 0:17:40.800 --> 0:17:43.119 that model. I don't know that it's going to have 0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:46.399 the same result. There are some major differences between a 0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:49.639 mass tort involving a physical product causing that physical injury 0:17:50.119 --> 0:17:55.359 and a online service causing many intangible injuries. It doesn't 0:17:55.400 --> 0:17:57.200 quite fit the historical model. 0:17:57.760 --> 0:18:00.760 What pose is more of a danger to the social 0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:06.200 media companies? Lawsuits like this, or legislation in the US 0:18:06.280 --> 0:18:09.320 and worldwide to limit them. 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:13.680 I don't rank the dangers and risk I would say 0:18:13.880 --> 0:18:16.679 look at it more like a portfolio approach. Think about 0:18:17.080 --> 0:18:20.359 all of the different cases and all of the different 0:18:20.440 --> 0:18:24.399 legislation as a portfolio of threats, and the question is 0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:29.679 do the cumulative risks pose danger to the defendants? And 0:18:29.720 --> 0:18:32.879 the answer in my mind is clearly yes. But I 0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:35.840 don't know which one of the cases, or which set 0:18:35.880 --> 0:18:38.359 of the cases, or which one of the laws or 0:18:38.400 --> 0:18:41.760 set of the laws will pose the greatest threat. But 0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:45.280 the overall aggregate effect of the cases and the laws 0:18:45.480 --> 0:18:48.840 poses a major threat to the social media defendants. There 0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:52.080 one other threat I'm going to mention The investors in 0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:55.320 these companies are assuming they're going to get market returns 0:18:55.400 --> 0:19:01.200 or better from their investments, and as the threat grow larger, 0:19:01.200 --> 0:19:06.520 the investors keep recalculating their valuations. And so another scenario 0:19:06.640 --> 0:19:08.679 is that the investors are going to put some substantial 0:19:08.680 --> 0:19:12.520 pressure on the social media defenders to do something, whether 0:19:12.560 --> 0:19:15.760 that's changed their offerings or settle or both in order 0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:20.600 to preserve their investment expectations. So the threats are really multitudinous, 0:19:20.640 --> 0:19:22.760 and it's not just the legal threat. 0:19:23.040 --> 0:19:25.159 So ten years from now, do you think that the 0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:28.760 social media landscape will be very different? 0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:34.359 I don't see how the current social media ecosystem is 0:19:34.400 --> 0:19:37.600 going to survive in its current form in the next 0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:41.639 ten years. That strikes me as extremely unlikely because of 0:19:41.680 --> 0:19:45.600 all the legal threats and other changes in society. I 0:19:45.880 --> 0:19:49.679 just don't see how that could be possible. The only 0:19:49.840 --> 0:19:53.200 way it might happen is if the Supreme Court issues 0:19:53.320 --> 0:19:57.760 a massive ruling that preempts a lot of the cases 0:19:57.800 --> 0:20:01.280 and the laws such that we have to rethink everything 0:20:01.680 --> 0:20:06.000 from a legal standpoint. But absent that, I believe that 0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:09.480 the cumulative fact of the laws and litigation will force 0:20:09.560 --> 0:20:13.520 social media services change. And I'm concerned about that because 0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:16.800 it means that where we take it for granted, that 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:20.240 today we can talk to each other freely online. I 0:20:20.280 --> 0:20:22.840 don't know that that's going to be the net outcome 0:20:23.080 --> 0:20:25.840 when all these changes have taken place. What we are 0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:29.000 going to see, I think instead is a circumscription of 0:20:29.080 --> 0:20:31.800 our ability to talk to each other, and in ways 0:20:31.880 --> 0:20:35.719 I think will make our lives less rich for many people. 0:20:36.160 --> 0:20:38.919 Eric, do you think that let's take Meta. Do you 0:20:38.960 --> 0:20:42.880 think that Meta has learned anything from the New Mexico 0:20:43.000 --> 0:20:47.119 trial and the California trial and it might change its tactics, 0:20:47.160 --> 0:20:50.399 because I mean, their defenses sound pretty much the same. 0:20:51.200 --> 0:20:55.160 Meta seems impervious to the feedback that it has been 0:20:55.160 --> 0:20:59.639 getting for a very long time about the concerns that 0:20:59.680 --> 0:21:03.080 people with its decision making. It seems to be making 0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:07.080 the same basic mistakes over and over again, both in 0:21:07.200 --> 0:21:10.240 terms of how it treats its users and also how 0:21:10.280 --> 0:21:13.480 it's been approaching the legal risk that it faces. So 0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:17.600 I don't think Meta is likely to learn any lesson 0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:22.040 from any particular development. The most likely way that Meta 0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:24.520 would change its tune is when the investors start putting 0:21:24.520 --> 0:21:28.000 pressure on it. Meta isn't delivering the kind of equity 0:21:28.119 --> 0:21:32.200 returns that it's investors respect that will catch their attention. 0:21:32.600 --> 0:21:36.160 I think everything else is unlikely to change here. They are. 0:21:36.600 --> 0:21:39.440 Meta always talks about We've done this, We've done that. 0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:43.240 You know, we listen to your concerns about teenagers. Have 0:21:43.400 --> 0:21:46.040 they done anything that's really helpful? 0:21:46.480 --> 0:21:48.679 Oh? No doubt that Meta has taken a number of 0:21:48.680 --> 0:21:52.080 steps that are designed to improve the experiences for its 0:21:52.160 --> 0:21:55.800 users and keep them safer. Having said that, Meta has 0:21:56.000 --> 0:22:02.399 also consistently, if in doubt, shows and options that prioritize 0:22:02.560 --> 0:22:06.199 user engagement over user health. And that's why I think 0:22:06.240 --> 0:22:11.280 there are so many disgruntled former Meta employees who are 0:22:11.440 --> 0:22:17.160 turning into whistleblowers or critics or witnesses against Meta because 0:22:17.600 --> 0:22:21.440 they feel like they weren't heard when they raised concerns 0:22:21.480 --> 0:22:24.320 about the effects of decisions on their users. 0:22:24.400 --> 0:22:28.000 And what are some of the far reaching consequences if 0:22:28.000 --> 0:22:29.680 the state ags win here. 0:22:30.680 --> 0:22:35.320 If the state ags prevail in their theories against social 0:22:35.359 --> 0:22:39.359 media defendants, it is likely, if not inevitable, that they 0:22:39.400 --> 0:22:42.440 will take those same theories and apply them to other 0:22:42.640 --> 0:22:45.800 parts of the internet. Other places where we're talking to 0:22:45.840 --> 0:22:49.240 each other will be put under the same legal microscope 0:22:49.280 --> 0:22:52.880 that the social media events are facing now. And that's 0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:56.199 why I view the stakes of the case so highly 0:22:56.280 --> 0:22:59.960 because not only is social media on trial, but implicitly 0:23:00.000 --> 0:23:03.520 the entire Internet is on trial. And I do worry 0:23:03.960 --> 0:23:08.120 that the plaintiffs, whether it's sate ages or school districts 0:23:08.160 --> 0:23:12.080 or individual victims, will learn the wrong lessons, which is 0:23:12.119 --> 0:23:15.880 that they can put editorial publishers under their thumb and 0:23:15.920 --> 0:23:18.480 force them to change how they publish content. If that's 0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:20.879 a lesson that we take away from those cases, we 0:23:20.960 --> 0:23:25.000 will all suffer the consequences. The Internet will look radically different. 0:23:25.400 --> 0:23:27.479 Eric, thanks so much. It's always great to have you 0:23:27.520 --> 0:23:31.200 on the show. That's Professor Eric Goleman of Santa Clara 0:23:31.359 --> 0:23:35.920 University Law School. Coming up next. Trump is confirming judges 0:23:36.040 --> 0:23:39.520 faster than in his first term. I'm June Grosso and 0:23:39.560 --> 0:23:46.680 you're listening to Bloomberg. Fifty three federal judges have been 0:23:46.760 --> 0:23:52.000 confirmed so far during President Trump's second term. That compares 0:23:52.080 --> 0:23:55.320 with fifty one at the same point in his first term. 0:23:55.560 --> 0:24:01.400 The Republicans accelerated judicial confirmations this summer, moving more nominees 0:24:01.520 --> 0:24:04.320 in June and July than in the first five months 0:24:04.359 --> 0:24:07.000 of the year. But now they'll have limited time to 0:24:07.119 --> 0:24:11.680 process nominees after they returned from recess. Joining me is 0:24:11.680 --> 0:24:15.640 an expert in the federal judiciary. Carl Tobias, a professor 0:24:15.640 --> 0:24:19.320 at the University of Richmond Law School. Carl, during Trump's 0:24:19.359 --> 0:24:24.600 first term, we talked about the backlog of judicial vacancies 0:24:24.680 --> 0:24:27.960 he inherited and how fast they were moving. How are 0:24:27.960 --> 0:24:30.600 they able to move even faster in this second term. 0:24:30.960 --> 0:24:35.359 Well, because they have been confirming him at a pretty 0:24:35.720 --> 0:24:41.760 quick pace. Grassley has been very aggressive about just setting 0:24:41.920 --> 0:24:48.080 the committee meetings and hearings and then moving them onto 0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:52.080 the floor with what he has. But at this point, 0:24:52.119 --> 0:24:56.680 there are hardly any left where there is a nominee 0:24:57.000 --> 0:25:03.320 who has not been through the p okay, and so 0:25:03.760 --> 0:25:07.119