1 00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:03,680 Speaker 1: Already and this is this is the daily This is 2 00:00:03,680 --> 00:00:06,840 Speaker 1: the Daily. Ohs oh, now it makes sense. 3 00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:17,599 Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday, 4 00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:20,279 Speaker 2: the twenty seventh of March. I'm Emma Gillespie. 5 00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:21,160 Speaker 1: I'm Sam Kazlowski. 6 00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:24,000 Speaker 2: If you've ever felt like social media is designed to 7 00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:27,319 Speaker 2: make it feel impossible to put your phone down, a 8 00:00:27,400 --> 00:00:30,520 Speaker 2: jury in the US just agreed with you. They've ordered 9 00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:33,880 Speaker 2: Meta and YouTube to pay for it in a landmark 10 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:36,879 Speaker 2: trial which is actually the first in a series of 11 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:41,640 Speaker 2: court cases that could reshape how social media works worldwide. 12 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:44,400 Speaker 2: In today's deep dive, we are going to explain how 13 00:00:44,440 --> 00:00:46,280 Speaker 2: we got here and what it could mean for the 14 00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:51,720 Speaker 2: future of some of the world's most popular apps. 15 00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:56,560 Speaker 1: M We've actually covered this trial when it kicked off 16 00:00:56,720 --> 00:00:59,760 Speaker 1: back in February, and we've actually covered a number of 17 00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,400 Speaker 1: similar cases around the world, most of them in the US, 18 00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:06,440 Speaker 1: that are kind of putting on trial this idea of 19 00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:11,399 Speaker 1: social media's role and responsibility in a mental health context, 20 00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: in a data privacy context. This is a really interesting 21 00:01:14,440 --> 00:01:17,679 Speaker 1: case where we actually have a judgment. Yeah, So for 22 00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:21,040 Speaker 1: anyone who isn't up to speed on this particular case, 23 00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:22,400 Speaker 1: set the scene for US. 24 00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:25,440 Speaker 2: So this case centers on a now twenty year old 25 00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:28,920 Speaker 2: woman who grew up in California. Her name is Kaylee. 26 00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:31,520 Speaker 2: That's pretty much all we know about her. She's made 27 00:01:31,520 --> 00:01:33,960 Speaker 2: a real effort to not really be the face of this, 28 00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:37,679 Speaker 2: but she brought this legal action and essentially claimed that 29 00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:41,319 Speaker 2: she started using YouTube when she was six, Instagram when 30 00:01:41,360 --> 00:01:44,559 Speaker 2: she was just eleven, and ultimately argued that the use 31 00:01:44,720 --> 00:01:48,960 Speaker 2: of those platforms became compulsive throughout her childhood and teen 32 00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:53,360 Speaker 2: years and as a result, over time she developed depression, anxiety, 33 00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:57,280 Speaker 2: body dysmorphia, and had all of these problems associated with 34 00:01:57,400 --> 00:01:59,120 Speaker 2: an addiction to these platforms. 35 00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:02,560 Speaker 1: Really interesting, so she has decided, at age twenty to 36 00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 1: actually take Meta, the parent company of Instagramp, and Google, 37 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:10,440 Speaker 1: the parent company of YouTube, to court over this. What 38 00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:12,800 Speaker 1: was her legal argument here though? 39 00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:16,840 Speaker 2: So, the key legal argument centered around the design of 40 00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:21,040 Speaker 2: these platforms of both YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. 41 00:02:20,600 --> 00:02:22,320 Speaker 1: So like the way that the product kind of looks 42 00:02:22,320 --> 00:02:23,760 Speaker 1: and feels exactly. 43 00:02:23,320 --> 00:02:26,120 Speaker 2: Not the content, but the product itself, And the legal 44 00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:30,680 Speaker 2: argument was that the design features were deliberately made to 45 00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:34,279 Speaker 2: hook young people to get them addicted to these platforms. 46 00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:38,200 Speaker 2: So there were comparisons in the legal arguments to online 47 00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:40,680 Speaker 2: casinos and big tobaccos. 48 00:02:40,080 --> 00:02:42,320 Speaker 1: So kind of flashing lights and you know, lots of 49 00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:45,160 Speaker 1: ways to encourage more continued use of that. 50 00:02:45,400 --> 00:02:48,360 Speaker 2: Yeah, and a critical argument also was that the companies 51 00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:51,840 Speaker 2: behind these platforms knew that they were causing harm, and 52 00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:55,639 Speaker 2: she knew that these features were addictive. Snapchat and TikTok 53 00:02:55,680 --> 00:02:57,920 Speaker 2: were also originally named in this lawsuit. 54 00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,560 Speaker 1: There were four kind of part rather at the beginning, yes, but. 55 00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:05,520 Speaker 2: Very early on both of those companies settled privately for 56 00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 2: an undisclosed amount. They were not involved in the case 57 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:11,200 Speaker 2: by the time it went to trial. Now, an interesting 58 00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:14,400 Speaker 2: point here is that in the US there are protections 59 00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:17,280 Speaker 2: for tech companies that mean they can't be held liable 60 00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:20,080 Speaker 2: for the content on their platforms. It but because this 61 00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:24,440 Speaker 2: case was arguing about features that was irrelevant. So you 62 00:03:24,520 --> 00:03:27,640 Speaker 2: can't sue met up because someone on Instagram said something 63 00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:30,480 Speaker 2: horrible about you in a post or in a comment, you 64 00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:33,920 Speaker 2: can't take action against the individual user. But that wasn't 65 00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:35,880 Speaker 2: what this case was about. And it's really the first 66 00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:38,920 Speaker 2: time we've seen these features things like you know, the 67 00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,760 Speaker 2: algorithm recommendations, infinite scrolling, auto. 68 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:47,440 Speaker 1: The ways that the specific tools in which these apps 69 00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:48,040 Speaker 1: are designed. 70 00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:51,680 Speaker 2: Yeah, push notifications, beauty filters, So all of those kinds 71 00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:54,080 Speaker 2: of things formed the basis of this legal argument that 72 00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:57,520 Speaker 2: they those features are harmful and that the companies behind 73 00:03:57,560 --> 00:03:58,440 Speaker 2: them knew it. 74 00:03:58,440 --> 00:04:01,360 Speaker 1: It's worth mentioning here quickly that we're talking about the 75 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:05,360 Speaker 1: civil case, right, So this isn't about criminal liability. There's 76 00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:08,000 Speaker 1: not like a director or Mark Zuckerberg or something going 77 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:12,840 Speaker 1: to jail here. This is really about monetary penalties in 78 00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:14,400 Speaker 1: the civil proceedings. 79 00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:18,640 Speaker 2: Well, it's about I suppose arguing these potential harms in 80 00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:22,080 Speaker 2: a court of law and the result of that is 81 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:24,800 Speaker 2: not jail time. The result of that is the form 82 00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:28,839 Speaker 2: of compensation. But it could also lead to regulatory changes. 83 00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:31,120 Speaker 2: And there are several other cases we'll get into later 84 00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:33,599 Speaker 2: that could also lead to those kinds of change at 85 00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:34,479 Speaker 2: a policy level. 86 00:04:34,520 --> 00:04:37,400 Speaker 1: So there's a lot at stake here. And it went 87 00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:41,279 Speaker 1: to trial, and interestingly, there was a jury, which is 88 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:45,240 Speaker 1: a quirk for a lot of civil proceedings. When the 89 00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:47,680 Speaker 1: representatives of YouTuber Meta got up in front of that 90 00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:50,560 Speaker 1: jury to defend themselves, what kind of things were they 91 00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:53,960 Speaker 1: saying in almost trying to figure out a way to 92 00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,480 Speaker 1: frame themselves as just the providers of the platform, not 93 00:04:57,520 --> 00:05:01,080 Speaker 1: necessarily having this agenda to enco courage over use. 94 00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:03,400 Speaker 2: Well, the first thing to note is that this was 95 00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:07,360 Speaker 2: an extensive trial. It ran for seven weeks sure in 96 00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:10,839 Speaker 2: an LA court, so there was significant evidence from both 97 00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:13,599 Speaker 2: sides and this jury, as you mentioned, of five men 98 00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:19,320 Speaker 2: and seven women, So we heard from therapists, engineers, tech executives. 99 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:24,880 Speaker 2: Kaylee herself, Mark Zuckerberg himself, and he as Meta CEO, 100 00:05:25,360 --> 00:05:27,839 Speaker 2: took the stand in February and told the jury that 101 00:05:27,960 --> 00:05:31,240 Speaker 2: keeping young people safe had always been a priority for 102 00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,400 Speaker 2: Meta and had always been inbuilt in its processes. He 103 00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:37,320 Speaker 2: also argued, quote if people feel like they're not having 104 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:40,560 Speaker 2: a good experience, why would they keep using the product? Interesting, 105 00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:43,719 Speaker 2: so basically saying if Meta is so dangerous, why is 106 00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:47,480 Speaker 2: it so popular? And Google put forward a similar metric 107 00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:51,320 Speaker 2: with YouTube. It also really argued that YouTube is not 108 00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:54,480 Speaker 2: a social media company and not a social media platform, 109 00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:55,200 Speaker 2: a debate. 110 00:05:54,920 --> 00:05:57,560 Speaker 1: That we've had here in Australia in the context of 111 00:05:57,640 --> 00:06:00,880 Speaker 1: everything from that age verification laws to media bargaining cars. 112 00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:04,440 Speaker 2: Yeah, so YouTube insists it's a video streaming platform, not 113 00:06:04,520 --> 00:06:06,919 Speaker 2: a social media site, and that its features were not 114 00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:10,760 Speaker 2: designed to be addictive. Both Meta and Google said that 115 00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:14,679 Speaker 2: there's no direct link between social media and mental health problems. 116 00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,760 Speaker 1: That's what we talked about a couple of months ago, exactly. 117 00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:19,640 Speaker 2: They claim that has not been definitively proved, that this 118 00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:24,600 Speaker 2: is an oversimplification. And for the plaintiffs, specifically Kaylee, they 119 00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,120 Speaker 2: argued that she had this troubled background. She'd grown up 120 00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:31,440 Speaker 2: in a house where domestic violence had occurred, she experienced 121 00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:33,760 Speaker 2: bullying at school. They said that it was not the 122 00:06:33,839 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 2: platforms that played a role in her depression and anxiety, 123 00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:39,960 Speaker 2: but that there were so many contributing factors. 124 00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:42,520 Speaker 1: That is so interesting because in a lot of these 125 00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:47,719 Speaker 1: sorts of cases, you get somebody who's coming forward to 126 00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:51,160 Speaker 1: take on these big tech giants, for example, who's kind 127 00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,159 Speaker 1: of used as a bit of a test case. Yes, 128 00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:57,360 Speaker 1: and it's not necessarily about their specific circumstances, but it's 129 00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:00,400 Speaker 1: about kind of what that plaintiff then represents. Yeah, it 130 00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:04,480 Speaker 1: sounds like they went really into Kaylee the person. Did 131 00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:07,080 Speaker 1: Kaylie herself then testify in court as well. 132 00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:10,320 Speaker 2: Yeah, we did hear directly from Kaylee who spoke about 133 00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:14,600 Speaker 2: how these platforms had really eroded her sense of self worth. 134 00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:18,000 Speaker 2: She described getting so drawn into them at such a 135 00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:20,480 Speaker 2: young age that she had to run to the bathroom 136 00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:22,920 Speaker 2: during class when she was at school to check on 137 00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:25,120 Speaker 2: how many likes her posts had gotten or how many 138 00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:29,240 Speaker 2: comments she had gotten. She talked about how that environment 139 00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:33,320 Speaker 2: led her to constantly compare herself to others, that she 140 00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:36,120 Speaker 2: used beauty filters to try to change the way that 141 00:07:36,160 --> 00:07:39,680 Speaker 2: she looked, filters that met his own employees, and dozens 142 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:44,480 Speaker 2: of external experts actually did warn could be harmful acknowledged 143 00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:47,680 Speaker 2: the damage that they caused throughout this trial. But even now, 144 00:07:47,760 --> 00:07:51,360 Speaker 2: Kaylee said she still feels the urge to monitor her 145 00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:55,080 Speaker 2: feeds to scroll through at work, so that addiction that 146 00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:58,320 Speaker 2: she describes is very much still real. Her lawyer, Mark 147 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:01,880 Speaker 2: Lanier showed the jury internal meta documents. This was a 148 00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:04,880 Speaker 2: pivotal moment in the case that included a document that 149 00:08:04,960 --> 00:08:09,120 Speaker 2: described the company's strategy to attract young users. So one 150 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,600 Speaker 2: document reportedly said, if we want to win big with teens, 151 00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:14,960 Speaker 2: we must bring them in as tweens. 152 00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:16,960 Speaker 1: And that kind of goes to that idea you mentioned 153 00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:19,520 Speaker 1: before about it's one thing if the mechanics of these 154 00:08:19,560 --> 00:08:23,680 Speaker 1: apps were found to have been encouraging addiction. It's another 155 00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:26,480 Speaker 1: thing if we can figure out through evidence that the 156 00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:27,360 Speaker 1: companies knew that. 157 00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:30,559 Speaker 2: Yes, and there was another document that appeared in court 158 00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:34,280 Speaker 2: that showed eleven year olds were four times as likely 159 00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:37,920 Speaker 2: to return to Instagram compared to competing apps. Now that's 160 00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:43,040 Speaker 2: despite Instagram's minimum age in the US being thirteen. Obviously 161 00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:46,439 Speaker 2: now here it's sixteen because of our own legislation in Australia. 162 00:08:46,920 --> 00:08:50,040 Speaker 2: But yeah, essentially painting a picture with these internal documents 163 00:08:50,080 --> 00:08:54,160 Speaker 2: that the focus priority at the company was certainly led 164 00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:57,640 Speaker 2: by a priority to get young people on the platform 165 00:08:57,720 --> 00:08:59,840 Speaker 2: as early as possible, to keep them there as long 166 00:08:59,880 --> 00:09:00,640 Speaker 2: as as possible. 167 00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:03,800 Speaker 1: I want to talk through the verdict and what happens now. 168 00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:08,800 Speaker 1: But first, here's a quick message from today's sponsor. Okay, 169 00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:11,840 Speaker 1: and we've talked through the evidence here and the ways 170 00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:15,400 Speaker 1: in which Meta and Google defended themselves. I want to 171 00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:17,400 Speaker 1: talk now about the verdicts. You said right at the 172 00:09:17,440 --> 00:09:19,360 Speaker 1: top that this is the first time that Meta and 173 00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:24,080 Speaker 1: Google have been found guilty of encouraging addiction on these apps. 174 00:09:24,480 --> 00:09:27,480 Speaker 1: Talk me through exactly what we learned from this verdict. 175 00:09:27,600 --> 00:09:30,800 Speaker 2: So the jury took more than eight days to deliberate. 176 00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:34,880 Speaker 2: It was extensive following an extensive trial, but on Wednesday, 177 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 2: ultimately they found Meta and YouTube liable on all counts. 178 00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:41,840 Speaker 2: They found the companies were negligent in how they designed 179 00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:45,160 Speaker 2: their platforms, that they knew they were dangerous and addictive, 180 00:09:45,440 --> 00:09:48,200 Speaker 2: that they failed to warn users of those risks, and 181 00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:52,600 Speaker 2: ultimately all of that combined led to Kaylee's mental health issues. 182 00:09:53,240 --> 00:09:56,920 Speaker 2: She was awarded three million US dollars. That's four point 183 00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:00,320 Speaker 2: three million dollars dollars. That was in compensation all the 184 00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:04,679 Speaker 2: harm caused by these platforms. Interestingly, the jury found Meta 185 00:10:05,000 --> 00:10:09,679 Speaker 2: seventy percent responsible interesting and YouTube thirty percent, so that 186 00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:13,280 Speaker 2: will be how the fines are divided. There were additional 187 00:10:13,320 --> 00:10:17,400 Speaker 2: penalties punitive damages is what they're called, but additional finds 188 00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:21,120 Speaker 2: recognizing this wrongdoing by the platforms. The Meta that was 189 00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:23,400 Speaker 2: a fine of two point one million US dollars and 190 00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:26,920 Speaker 2: for YouTube nine hundred thousand dollars. I wanted to play 191 00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:30,200 Speaker 2: you a little bit of what Cayley's lawyers said outside 192 00:10:30,280 --> 00:10:30,679 Speaker 2: the court. 193 00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:35,320 Speaker 3: There are so many families who've been tragically hurt through 194 00:10:35,760 --> 00:10:39,720 Speaker 3: the addiction of social media, and we've sent a message 195 00:10:39,800 --> 00:10:43,120 Speaker 3: with this that you will be held accountable for the features. 196 00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:47,600 Speaker 3: Just because of the features alone that drive addiction, these 197 00:10:47,640 --> 00:10:51,080 Speaker 3: companies can be held accountable. That's a huge message for 198 00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:53,439 Speaker 3: these companies, and I think that you're going to see 199 00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:58,360 Speaker 3: even more legal changes that will alter the landscape of 200 00:10:58,440 --> 00:11:04,480 Speaker 3: social media action and opportunity for those young child developing brains. 201 00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:07,440 Speaker 2: There were also a group of parents of teens who've 202 00:11:07,520 --> 00:11:11,160 Speaker 2: died from what they argue is social media use, and 203 00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:13,200 Speaker 2: I wanted to play you a moment from one of 204 00:11:13,240 --> 00:11:15,160 Speaker 2: those mothers outside the court as well. 205 00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:19,080 Speaker 3: We now know that they were manipulating our children for 206 00:11:19,280 --> 00:11:22,679 Speaker 3: profits while we were watching and trying to keep our 207 00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:27,360 Speaker 3: families safe. They are the predators. 208 00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:29,120 Speaker 1: And can I just pick up on one thing you said, 209 00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:31,280 Speaker 1: they're the seventy to thirty split. I think that's a 210 00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:34,760 Speaker 1: really interesting decision by the court. Were there any reasons 211 00:11:35,160 --> 00:11:39,040 Speaker 1: why the jury said that Meta was more responsible double 212 00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:41,199 Speaker 1: as responsible kind of than YouTube. 213 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,040 Speaker 2: It really came down to the evidence that was presented 214 00:11:44,280 --> 00:11:47,760 Speaker 2: over these weeks and weeks of hearings. Ultimately, the evidence 215 00:11:47,760 --> 00:11:52,600 Speaker 2: against Meta was significantly more extensive. We had those internal 216 00:11:52,679 --> 00:11:55,679 Speaker 2: documents that were put to the jury that I mentioned earlier, 217 00:11:55,920 --> 00:12:00,440 Speaker 2: There was also evidence that supported YouTube's argument that Bailey's 218 00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:04,040 Speaker 2: own account records showed that she'd spent very little time 219 00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,640 Speaker 2: on the side. Okay, now there was pushback against that. 220 00:12:06,720 --> 00:12:08,720 Speaker 2: Kaylee's lawyers said that that was just the time she 221 00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:11,720 Speaker 2: spent on YouTube logged in. As we know, you can 222 00:12:11,760 --> 00:12:15,120 Speaker 2: watch plenty of YouTube without being logged in. Her lawyers 223 00:12:15,120 --> 00:12:17,520 Speaker 2: counted that pushback against that, but ultimately it led the 224 00:12:17,600 --> 00:12:20,840 Speaker 2: jury or contributed to the jury's decision that Meta was 225 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:24,719 Speaker 2: significantly more liable or played a much bigger role in 226 00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:26,679 Speaker 2: Kaylee's issues than YouTube. 227 00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:29,480 Speaker 1: So this big verdict comes out. Have we heard from 228 00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:31,319 Speaker 1: the companies themselves? I mean, these are some of the 229 00:12:31,320 --> 00:12:32,480 Speaker 1: biggest companies in the world. 230 00:12:32,559 --> 00:12:35,120 Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll both say they plan to appeal. Both have 231 00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:38,199 Speaker 2: rejected the verdict. YouTube continues to argue it shouldn't be 232 00:12:38,240 --> 00:12:41,240 Speaker 2: categorized as a social media platform. We also heard from 233 00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:43,080 Speaker 2: a Meta spokesperson outside of court. 234 00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:44,040 Speaker 1: Here's what they said. 235 00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:48,560 Speaker 4: We respectfully disagree with a verdict and will appeal. Team 236 00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:52,280 Speaker 4: mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to 237 00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:56,479 Speaker 4: a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously 238 00:12:56,600 --> 00:13:00,079 Speaker 4: as every case is different and we remain confident in 239 00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:02,760 Speaker 4: our record of protecting teams online. 240 00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:05,600 Speaker 1: I noticed there was very little movement in their share 241 00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:09,079 Speaker 1: price in the hours after the decision got handed down, 242 00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:11,680 Speaker 1: So investors seem to not be that concerned with this 243 00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:15,040 Speaker 1: kind of opening the floodgates of potential other claims. That's 244 00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:18,800 Speaker 1: an interesting you know, not an indicator of anything particularly 245 00:13:18,840 --> 00:13:20,960 Speaker 1: meaningful this early, because they're still going to appeal, but 246 00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:24,120 Speaker 1: still always interesting to see how the markets react. Let's 247 00:13:24,160 --> 00:13:26,480 Speaker 1: kind of end with a big picture here. We've had 248 00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:30,440 Speaker 1: this massive verdict, but it comes amidst a whole lot 249 00:13:30,440 --> 00:13:33,800 Speaker 1: of other court activity. Give me a sense of where 250 00:13:33,800 --> 00:13:37,200 Speaker 1: you think this leaves everything in this space in the 251 00:13:37,200 --> 00:13:37,800 Speaker 1: big picture. 252 00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:41,000 Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, this case that's been described as a Bellweather 253 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:45,440 Speaker 2: trial basically a landmark setting a precedent ahead of several 254 00:13:45,600 --> 00:13:48,960 Speaker 2: other cases, a test case designed to signal how they 255 00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:51,840 Speaker 2: may go. Now, when I say several other cases, I'm 256 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:57,280 Speaker 2: talking about thousands. There are approximately two thousand lawsuits tied 257 00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:01,480 Speaker 2: to this one, brought by parents school districts who have 258 00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:04,640 Speaker 2: argued these platforms were designed to make a generation of 259 00:14:04,679 --> 00:14:08,920 Speaker 2: young people dependent on them, addicted to them. Separately, this week, 260 00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,360 Speaker 2: in the state of New Mexico, a jury ordered Meta 261 00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:15,400 Speaker 2: to pay three hundred and seventy five million US dollars 262 00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,240 Speaker 2: about six hundred million AUSI dollars after finding that it 263 00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:23,320 Speaker 2: misled uses about safety and allegedly enabled child exploitation. Now, 264 00:14:23,320 --> 00:14:26,560 Speaker 2: the six million dollar penalty for Meta from this other 265 00:14:26,640 --> 00:14:29,120 Speaker 2: case in California is a drop in the ocean in 266 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:31,920 Speaker 2: terms of its earnings and worth three hundred and seventy 267 00:14:31,960 --> 00:14:34,560 Speaker 2: five million is a much bigger headache for Meta, you 268 00:14:34,560 --> 00:14:37,360 Speaker 2: would have to argue. So we've had those two massive 269 00:14:37,400 --> 00:14:40,560 Speaker 2: verdicts in two days. In terms of where it leaves us. 270 00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:44,800 Speaker 2: There is this theory that social media can cause personal injury, 271 00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:49,440 Speaker 2: personal harm that's been validated now by Kayley's lawsuit. So 272 00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:52,600 Speaker 2: the trial continues to be compared to legal battles against 273 00:14:52,680 --> 00:14:55,200 Speaker 2: big tobacco that we saw in the nineties. Interesting that 274 00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:59,960 Speaker 2: ultimately caused significant reform in that industry. So Tech Giant 275 00:15:00,360 --> 00:15:03,960 Speaker 2: could be exposed to further damages with a bill that 276 00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:06,960 Speaker 2: could rack up into the billions if every case is 277 00:15:07,200 --> 00:15:10,400 Speaker 2: you know, six million dollars worth of compensation that may 278 00:15:10,480 --> 00:15:14,920 Speaker 2: force product changes. There are about forty attorneys general across 279 00:15:15,040 --> 00:15:19,200 Speaker 2: US states bringing action looking to force regulatory changes looking 280 00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:22,160 Speaker 2: to hold particularly Meta to accounts. 281 00:15:22,200 --> 00:15:26,080 Speaker 1: So that's about eighty percent of America is currently thinking 282 00:15:26,200 --> 00:15:29,400 Speaker 1: through as a state body how they restrict or limit 283 00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:32,360 Speaker 1: or at least measure this use. It's incredible. 284 00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:36,360 Speaker 2: So you've got government officials, politicians, parents, school districts, all 285 00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:40,600 Speaker 2: these states all pushing for a similar outcome. The story 286 00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:43,160 Speaker 2: is just getting started and far from over. We'll be 287 00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:45,680 Speaker 2: keeping a close eye on how these other trials unfold 288 00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:46,880 Speaker 2: over the coming months, and. 289 00:15:46,880 --> 00:15:48,320 Speaker 1: I think if I was to kind of cast a 290 00:15:48,320 --> 00:15:50,600 Speaker 1: bit of a crystal ball here on what we could 291 00:15:50,640 --> 00:15:52,720 Speaker 1: look at in the next couple of years, you'd say 292 00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:54,800 Speaker 1: that there's a likely chance that this ends up in 293 00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:57,760 Speaker 1: America's Supreme Court. I mean, you've got so much court 294 00:15:57,840 --> 00:16:01,920 Speaker 1: activity across the country, so many tech giants ready to 295 00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:04,720 Speaker 1: appeal every verdict as well. Yep, I would say that 296 00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:07,000 Speaker 1: within the next couple of years they'll be the one 297 00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:11,200 Speaker 1: big social media case in the Supreme Court that will 298 00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:12,880 Speaker 1: be I think, probably the defining mond. 299 00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:15,040 Speaker 2: You have to think that's where it's going, especially based 300 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:18,040 Speaker 2: on the defense that Google and Meta are continuing to push. 301 00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:20,920 Speaker 2: The language is exactly the same time and time again. 302 00:16:21,320 --> 00:16:25,080 Speaker 2: The phrases. The quotes are identical for different states, different courtrooms, 303 00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:26,800 Speaker 2: so I reckon you're probably on the money there. 304 00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:29,080 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for that. EM really appreciate it. Thanks Sam, 305 00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:31,560 Speaker 1: and thank you for joining us for that deep I 306 00:16:31,600 --> 00:16:34,240 Speaker 1: have a really interesting topic, and thank you for joining 307 00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:36,800 Speaker 1: us this week. It's been a sensational week of pods 308 00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:39,000 Speaker 1: from the team here at TDA. We're going to be 309 00:16:39,000 --> 00:16:41,960 Speaker 1: back this afternoon with some headlines for you. Until then, 310 00:16:42,080 --> 00:16:49,200 Speaker 1: have a beautiful Friday. My name is Lily Maddon and 311 00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:53,000 Speaker 1: I'm a proud Arunda Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadigol Country. 312 00:16:53,800 --> 00:16:56,960 Speaker 1: The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on 313 00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:59,480 Speaker 1: the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to 314 00:16:59,560 --> 00:17:02,880 Speaker 1: all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay 315 00:17:02,880 --> 00:17:05,800 Speaker 1: our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both 316 00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:06,760 Speaker 1: past and present.