Meta and Google face** a reckoning **over *social-media addiction* A landmark verdict in California could have far-reaching consequences Mar 25th 2026|3 min read Among the 17m American children who use Instagram, the average time spent scrolling the app each day is 30 minutes. But for Kaley, a 20-year-old who started using social media aged six, it became an hours-a-day addiction. Spending time on Instagram, as well as YouTube, led to feelings of body dysmorphia and thoughts of self-harm, she claimed. On March 25th a jury in California agreed, ordering the apps’ parent companies, Meta and Google, to pay Kaley (whose full name has not been made public) $6m in damages. The payout amounts to less than one-thousandth of a percent of the companies’ annual sales. But it threatens to do them far more harm. The novel legal argument used by Kaley’s lawyers may bring social networks to heel in a way that previous attempts have not. The firms are weighing their options—both have said they will appeal—but the ruling could be a turning point in how social apps are regulated. Although this was the first time that Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s boss, appeared before a jury, it was hardly the first attempt to sue social apps into changing their ways. In 2023 a case against Twitter, over its hosting of terrorist material, made it to the Supreme Court. But that case, like many others, went in favour of the tech industry. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 excuses social networks from liability for what their users post. Kaley’s lawyers took a different approach. Rather than trying to hold Meta and Google responsible for the harmful content hosted on their platforms, they attacked them for the way the platforms are designed. They showed the jury internal company documents demonstrating that executives knew of their products’ harmful effects on children, and argued that features like auto-playing videos, personalised recommendations and infinite feeds were designed to lure youngsters. The verdict could influence thousands of similar lawsuits that have been filed against Meta, Google and other social-media firms. (TikTok and Snap were part of Kaley’s complaint, but settled before the trial.) Some lawyers have compared the claims to the cases brought against tobacco companies in earlier decades, which led to widespread regulation of the industry. **America is not the only place where social apps are facing greater scrutiny. **In February a preliminary ruling from the European Commission found TikTok in breach of its Digital Services Act owing to its “addictive” features. TikTok was told to change the design of its app or risk a fine of up to 6% of the global revenue of its Chinese owner, ByteDance. Reining in such features would probably reduce the amount of time spent on social apps, and thus the number of ads users could be served—and the profits to be gained. Governments are focused in particular on protecting youngsters. In December Australia banned under-16s from using social networks; others from Britain to Malaysia are considering similar measures. A 30-country study last year by Ipsos, a pollster, asked whether under-14s should be excluded from social media, and found a majority in favour in every country. The verdict in California may soon go viral. ■ 社群媒體成癮：Meta 與 Google 正面臨大清算加州法院的一項指標性判決，可能對科技業產生深遠影響 ** ** 在全美國 1,700 萬名使用 Instagram 的孩童中，平均每人每天刷螢幕的時間大約是 30 分鐘。但對於今年 20 歲的凱莉（Kaley）來說，社群媒體卻成了一場長達數年的噩夢。她從 6 歲就開始接觸社群平台，後來發展成每天花好幾個小時沉迷其中。凱莉聲稱，過度使用 Instagram 和 YouTube 讓她出現了「身體意象失調」（對外表極度自卑）的情況，甚至產生自殘念頭。加州陪審團在 3 月 25 日認同了她的說法，判決母公司 Meta 和 Google 必須賠償凱莉 600 萬美元（約新台幣 1.9 億元）。這筆賠償金雖然還不到這兩家公司年營收的百分之 0. 1，但對他們的殺傷力卻遠不止於此。凱莉律師團所採用的「全新法律觀點」，可能會以前所未有的方式制衡社群網路。雖然兩家公司都表示會提出上訴，但這個判決很可能成為社群平台監管制度的轉捩點。雖然這是 Meta 老闆馬克．祖克柏第一次站在陪審團面前，但這並非民間第一次嘗試透過法律手段要求平台做出改變。2023 年，曾有人針對 Twitter 散布恐怖主義內容提起訴訟，一路打到最高法院，但最後結果卻偏向科技產業。因為根據 1996 年《通訊規範法》第 230 條，社群平台對於用戶發布的內容具有「免責權」，不需要負法律責任。但這次凱莉的律師團隊換了個招式：他們不再針對平台上的「內容」吵，而是針對平台的「設計」開刀。他們向陪審團展示了公司的內部文件，證明高層明明知道產品會對孩童產生負面影響，卻依然設計出「自動播放」、「個人化推薦」以及「滑不到底的動態牆」等功能，目的就是要誘使年輕人上鉤。這個判決可能會牽動數千件針對 Meta、Google 及其他平台的類似訴訟（先前 TikTok 和 Snap 也是被告，但在開庭前已達成和解）。有些律師甚至將這次的案例比作數十年前對菸草公司的集體訴訟，當時那些案件最終導致了整個菸草業受到嚴格監管。除了美國，世界各國對社群平台的監管也越來越嚴。今年 2 月，歐盟委員會初步判定 TikTok 違反了《數位服務法》，原因就在於其「成癮性」功能。TikTok 被要求必須更改設計，否則可能面臨其母公司字節跳動（ByteDance）全球年營收 6% 的鉅額罰款。一旦這些讓人成癮的功能被限制，用戶留在平台上的時間就會縮短，看到的廣告變少，公司的利潤自然也會跟著縮水。現在世界各國政府都把焦點放在保護青少年。澳洲已經在去年 12 月禁止 16 歲以下青少年使用社群網路；英國與馬來西亞也在考慮跟進。去年 Ipsos 針對 30 個國家的民調顯示，絕大多數人都支持禁止 14 歲以下孩童使用社群媒體。看來，加州這場判決的影響力，很快就會像病毒一樣傳遍全球。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related