Bellwether Social Media trial

the_grube

the_grube

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
One of many articles on the topic: https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-s...motional-toll-instagram-youtube-use/18655468/

This is one of many cases right now https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...-media-responsible-for-what-happens-to-users/
"It’s a so-called bellwether trial.

There are about 1,600 cases that are in multidistrict litigation, which is a procedure for consolidating cases for some parts of the adjudication process. This is the first, but there’s going to be about two dozen bellwether trials. And these cases are selected as representative litigation for the larger pool of litigants."
 
HB3w2ihWcAAgSkE.jpeg
 
She needs better parents.

She should take them to court for failing their parental duties.
 
The jury decided in favor of the plaintiff: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...ogle-trial-social-media-addiction-2026-03-25/ The fines are a drop in the bucket for Google and Meta. Still this sets precedent for the thousands of other cases on the books around the country.

In similar news Meta was fined 375mil by the state of New Mexico:
"A New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab violated state law in a lawsuit brought by the state attorney general, who accused the company of misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms." https://www.reuters.com/sustainabil...it-over-child-sexual-exploitation-2026-03-24/

6mil here, 375mil there.. pretty soon you're talking about real money.
 
the_grube said:
6mil here, 375mil there.. pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Click to expand...


381 million is 0.4563% of the 83.5 billion Meta made in 2025

It's a rounding error...
.
 
Lawyers will be getting richer.
 
It will be overturned on appeal.
 
If parents would just monitor and limit their kids social media none of this would be necessary IMHO! I know of a few that do, but way more that don't... you can blame the companies, and I do, but really you can only control yourself and those in your direct sphere of influence...
 
flybill said:
If parents would just monitor and limit their kids social media none of this would be necessary IMHO! I know of a few that do, but way more that don't... you can blame the companies, and I do, but really you can only control yourself and those in your direct sphere of influence...
Click to expand...

Just as many parents are getting wrecked by social media as kids. This is evidenced by the increasing crazy we see around us.
 
fatbillybob said:
Just as many parents are getting wrecked by social media as kids. This is evidenced by the increasing crazy we see around us.
Click to expand...
I agree. My niece and nephews don't use social media much or at all... they're in their 20s and it seems pretty common for that age group.. as bad as FB or Instagram are, tik tok is by far my least favorite! And the specialized ones.. ie political ones, on all sides +
 
Social Media owners are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act regarding user posts. This has protected the owners from a lot of lawsuits. There is a new, growing and successful trend of going after the owners (designers, content moderators, implementers) and winning in court with large monetary awards. It is only the beginning.

If these lawsuits continue and hold up on appeals, it is very far reaching.

AI companies could be in trouble. I am sure they are looking at it. Anthropic recently got blacklisted by the government for including contractual terms of how their product could not be used. It is in the courts now.
 
RCF said:
Social Media owners are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act regarding user posts. This has protected the owners from a lot of lawsuits. There is a new, growing and successful trend of going after the owners (designers, content moderators, implementers) and winning in court with large monetary awards. It is only the beginning.
Click to expand...
Stepping away from the hot-button feelings about social networks themselves...

It is important to remember that, imperfect though it may be, Section 230 is also what allows sites like pnwflyfishing.com to operate. If we were held liable for every stupid thing that someone posted or uploaded to the site, we would have to close our doors. There is simply no way that a small forum like ours could operate stuck in the middle of bad actors, criminals, morons, ambulance chaser lawyers, and an extremely litigious society. I have doubts that even a large social network could survive the legal onslaught that would occur if they could be blamed for every criminal action or libelous post on their site. But I promise you that this site, and others like it, could not.

Could Section 230 be updated and improved? I suspect there's a strong argument that it could. But anyone claiming it should be scrapped doesn't understand what we would be losing.
 
Peyton00 said:
She needs better parents.

She should take them to court for failing their parental duties.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of social media and think it's in many ways a vector for the degradation of society but people have got to have accountability for their own shit. That lack of accountability has lead to a litigious American society that has given rise of insurance empires and requirements, lawfare, and just general dumb asses not getting the natural selection they do desperately need.
 
Josh said:
Stepping away from the hot-button feelings about social networks themselves...

It is important to remember that, imperfect though it may be, Section 230 is also what allows sites like pnwflyfishing.com to operate. If we were held liable for every stupid thing that someone posted or uploaded to the site, we would have to close our doors. There is simply no way that a small forum like ours could operate stuck in the middle of bad actors, criminals, morons, ambulance chaser lawyers, and an extremely litigious society. I have doubts that even a large social network could survive the legal onslaught that would occur if they could be blamed for every criminal action or libelous post on their site. But I promise you that this site, and others like it, could not.

Could Section 230 be updated and improved? I suspect there's a strong argument that it could. But anyone claiming it should be scrapped doesn't understand what we would be losing.
Click to expand...
I completely agree @Josh . I apologize for not being clearer.

I was trying to differiate between everyday posts which Section 230 covers well and AI/large social network creators allowing/supporting anything to make bigger bucks, and designing them to get more users and creating and supporting addictive behavior as well as supporting creation of stuff like porn.
 
flybill said:
If parents would just monitor and limit their kids social media none of this would be necessary IMHO! I know of a few that do, but way more that don't... you can blame the companies, and I do, but really you can only control yourself and those in your direct sphere of influence...
Click to expand...
How many kids have you raised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top