Madeline Mekelberg

Therein lies the crux, Madeline, because before the arguments have been about the content from which in many ways they are shielded.

But this is about how we are served said content more broadly.

What is it that is deemed to be harmful?

And are we already expecting the business model changes are going to be interpreted from this?

Because things have changed.

Companies have responded to a certain extent, but they were deemed in many ways negligent because there weren't warnings to younger people.

Right.

It's not just the consumer protection angle, though, but there's also the public schools, there's estates, Eric.

But I want to go to what happened earlier in the week on Tuesday in New Mexico, because actually a much larger sum of money was being demanded of META after it was deemed not to have protected teenagers in that particular state when it came to sexual predators.

Now, can you weave in that particular legal strike on META and what that means more broadly in this context?

And Eric, of course, as we've mentioned, both companies disagree.

And Google is coming out strongly saying you misinterpret our very business model.

YouTube is not a social media platform.

It's a streaming platform.

Whereas Metro is looking at its own platform.

arguments but more broadly its argument has been there is so much more to mental health than one particular platform one particular app and they actually had some evidence from various doctors showing that in some ways certain of these social media platforms offered positive narratives to the it was indeed a woman called kaylee we understand who brought up the particular court case in this hearing eric what do you make of those arguments

Well said, Eric Goldman.

Appreciate you coming on Santa Clara University School of Law.

Really deep dive there.

Now coming up, we've got more on the wider market implications for tech after the landmark social media addiction verdict against Meta and Google.