this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
88 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

83027 readers
3630 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
88
Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial; Ordered to pay $3 Million (text.npr.org)
submitted 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A California jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child, awarding her $3 million in a rare verdict holding Silicon Valley accountable for its role in fueling a youth mental health crisis.

The jurors concluded that Meta and Google should pay the woman $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta on the hook for 70% of that amount.

The jury also decided that Meta and Google's actions should trigger punitive damages, which means there will be a separate phase of the trial where the jury will decide what amount of damages are appropriate to punish the multi-trillion-dollar companies for their conduct.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db2@lemmy.world 35 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That's like sentencing a murderer to pay $3 in restitution which he can and will appeal.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I thought the same thing for a moment, until I realized that's for one person. Now imagine a similar class action lawsuit. Of course it's not realistic to expect that dollar amount multiplied by that many people, but it could be a pretty significant dent.

[–] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

yes.. yes it is realistic.

the precedent is set that it costs 3million per person..

these companies should get zero free passes. hit them with the only thing they care about..money. these companies, if law was actually useful, would have been shut down many manyany years ago, and CEO's would have been jailed by now. if the law actually mattered that is..

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 1 points 14 minutes ago

I wasn't commenting on what should morally or legally be. I'm just saying that if there's, say, 1 million plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit it's not realistic to expect 3 million dollars (minus attorneys fees) in each person's bank account. That would be 3 trillion dollars, not including whatever punitive damages end up being. There's a practical issue to be considered.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 38 minutes ago

the precedent is set that it costs 3million per person

Far from it actually. If anything appeals may pare down damages and nonpunitive damages must be backed by actual calculations. The bigger point I think is this sort of case can survive.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Did Zuckerbot throw it over his shoulder on the way out of the courtroom?