Still no verdict in LA's landmark social media trial

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Jurors in the landmark civil trial over the negative mental health effects of social media on children finished their eighth day of deliberations Tuesday without reaching a verdict.

“I don’t think this a deadlocked jury,” plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier told reporters outside the Downtown LA courthouse at the end of the day. “I think this is a very careful jury.”

Lanier, among the most successful mass tort trial lawyers in the country, said that in his 42 years of practice this is the longest he’d ever had a jury deliberate. “This is a record,” he said, while noting that while exiting the courthouse, the jurors appeared to all be in “good moods.”

The 12 jurors have been mulling a verdict every weekday since March 12, for nearly six hours a day. They’ve been tasked with deciding whether or not Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, were negligent in designing their apps, and if that negligence contributed to the depression and anxiety of one 20-year-old woman, known in court as Kaley GM, her last name being withheld because she was a minor when the lawsuit was first filed. The jury was also asked if the two tech giants knew their products were dangerous but failed to warn their young users.

If the jurors answer yes to either of those questions — for either defendant — they’ll be asked to award damages, paid to Kaley by the two companies. They’ll also be asked if either of the two companies acted with malice or fraud; a yes answer to that question will trigger a second phase of the trial to award punitive damages. All questions need to be answered by at least nine jurors.

The jurors appear to be going about their jobs with extraordinary diligence, having sent 10 notes to the judge, asking various questions about evidence and testimony. On Friday, they were asked if all jurors had to vote on the damages award, including those that voted ’no’ on liability. This was taken by plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier to mean they are close to a verdict — one that would favor the plaintiff.

On Monday, the jury sent another note informing the judge of difficulties “coming to consensus with one defendant.” Lanier said he thought this meant that nine jurors couldn’t agree on the malice question for one defendant, likely Google, which argued throughout the monthlong trial that it was neither a social media company nor an addictive platform.

Kaley said she began watching YouTube videos at age 6; Lanier said the platform was her “gateway,” and that it created neural pathways that left her vulnerable to future addictions. She joined Instagram at 9, and by her teens, social media had become a daily obsession, keeping her up late and isolating her from friends.

Lanier said Instagram’s “beauty filters,” which can smooth skin and make users appear thinner, reinforced Kaley’s belief that she was “fat” and unattractive. Even when she experienced online bullying, she said she couldn’t put her phone down.

“Every single day I was on it, all day long,” Kaley testified in February. “I just can’t be without it.”

Meta argued Kaley’s mental health struggles stem from other causes, namely a difficult home life, in which she was subjected to physical and emotional abuse.

“If you took Instagram away, would anything be different?” Meta attorney Paul Schmidt asked jurors in closing arguments. “That’s the core question in this case.”

Kaley’s trial is the first of more than 2,000 cases involving plaintiffs suing the country’s four biggest social media companies — Google, Meta, Snap and TikTok — for various mental health harms, including addiction and body dysmorphia. The judge in the consolidated proceedings has earmarked 20 cases, two of which have since been dropped, to serve as bellwethers, meaning their judgment could be used to hammer out a global settlement covering all plaintiffs.

The cases in LA are not the only ones against social media companies. Also on Tuesday, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay a staggering $375 million to the state for violating consumer protection law by enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Jurors deliberated for only about a day before coming to their verdict, the first time a social media company has ever been held liable by a jury for harming its underage users.

“The jury’s verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety,” said New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. “Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees and lied to the public about what they knew."

A spokesman for Meta said it would appeal the judgment.

One key difference between the two trials is that the New Mexico trial centered on content that was published and spread over Meta’s three apps. The LA case centers on apps’ design features, such as infinite scroll, notifications and beauty filters.

Jury deliberations resume Wednesday morning. One juror has said previously they have a vacation that starts Thursday. Should that juror be replaced by an alternate, the jury will have to return to the first question on the verdict form.

Follow @hillelaron