Meta, Google Verdict Raises Questions About Free Speech Protections

In Focus

• Meta and Google plan to appeal the Los Angeles court ruling
• The tech giants will use the First Amendment to challenge the verdict
• Experts warn that a free speech argument could take the appeal to the Supreme Court

The $6 million verdict against Meta and Google will likely have a huge impact on how the big techs and their competitors run their businesses, according to Yahoo Finance. The Los Angeles court ruled that the tech giants were negligent. However, getting them to overhaul their platform will likely be an uphill task.

Ruling Sets Precedent for Similar Lawsuits

In its ruling, the court said Meta and Google knew their platform designs were dangerous, and awarded the plaintiffs $6 million in compensatory damages. The Meta and Google social media addiction lawsuit was considered critical in showing how similar lawsuits would be handled.

For many parents, states, and school districts, the social media harm to children lawsuit ruling set a strong precedent. Similar lawsuits against the big techs will likely follow. Already, Meta is facing an underage exploitation trial in New Mexico.

But Google and Meta are preparing to appeal the decision. Experts argue that an appeal against the case on social media addiction and its impact on youth mental health will likely raise questions about protection of free speech. Such questions could likely push appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, a process that could take years.

“This is kind of an interesting new twist on a plaintiff’s side theory, a deliberate attempt to try to sidestep the prohibition [regarding content] that Section 230 lays out. And so there’s a chance that under federal law, this would be considered to be an impermissible attempt to sidestep [Section 230],” Columbia Law School professor Eric Talley stated.

What Would a Supreme Court Ruling Mean for Big Tech?

A loss at the Supreme Court would impact Meta and Alphabet negatively and affect free speech online. On the other hand, a Supreme Court ruling that favors the big techs could shift the way attorneys approach social media addiction lawsuits.

For a long time, critics have argued that social media platforms are dangerous for under-age use. However, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects tech firms from liabilities arising from hosting content and making efforts to moderate content that they consider to be ‘objectionable’.

If Meta and Google lose at the Supreme Court, and Section 230 fails to protect their platform designs, Congress may step in to broaden those protections. Alternatively, the companies would have to redesign their platforms in line with the concerns raised in the Los Angeles case.

Focus Shifts to the First Amendment

Some experts say the tech companies would be challenging the social media addiction lawsuit ruling using the First Amendment. They will likely argue that their platform designs and algorithms are a form of free speech.

“Of course, we’re all happy to see that maybe tech companies are going to be incentivized to be more responsible. But what does that really mean in practice? Does that mean that they design their services so that people don’t talk about controversial topics so that they’re much more controlled?,” Harvard Law School Lecturer, Timothy Edgar noted.

Social media firms are under growing global pressure as regulators push for stronger safeguards around teen use and mental health.