Law firms investigate possible Australian cases after US jury finds Meta and YouTube designed addictive products
Analysis Summary
- Propaganda Score
- 0% (confidence: 95%)
- Summary
- A US court ruled Meta and YouTube negligent for designing addictive products, awarding $6m in damages. Australian law firms are evaluating similar cases, while the Australian government expands regulations targeting addictive social media features. Experts and politicians discuss the need for accountability and digital duty of care laws.
Fact-Check Results
“Australian law firms are investigating the scope for future legal cases after a landmark US court ruling that found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing addictive products.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to confirm Australian law firms are investigating legal cases related to the US ruling.
“A jury in Los Angeles ruled against the two tech giants on Wednesday, finding both to be negligent and having failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their products.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to verify the Los Angeles jury's ruling against Meta and YouTube.
“The jury awarded the plaintiff, known as KGM, US$6m in case damages, to be split 70-30 between Meta and Google.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to confirm the $6m damages award or its allocation between Meta and Google.
“KGM had testified she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine. She told the court that by age 10 she had become depressed and was engaging in self-harm as a result. At 13 she was diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, which she attributed to use of Instagram and YouTube.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to verify KGM's testimony about her mental health and social media use.
“The decision came just one day after Meta was ordered to pay US$375m in civil penalties in a separate lawsuit in New Mexico after a jury found Meta misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabled harm.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to confirm the $375m New Mexico penalty against Meta.
“Australian law firm Shine Lawyers “is working through inquiries and investigating how an Australian claim could be run””
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to verify Shine Lawyers' investigation of Australian claims.
“Meta declined to comment beyond its statement from the US ruling. Google was approached for comment.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to confirm Meta's comments or Google's response to the ruling.
“The Albanese government extended the definition of social media platforms that must comply with Australia’s under-16s social media ban to include those that have systems “designed to be addictive and provide constant dopamine hits”, including those with infinite scroll and likes or upvotes features, and time-limited features that are “designed to create urgency so young people check apps constantly”.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to verify Australia's expanded social media ban definition.
“The federal government has committed to legislating a digital duty of care that would require platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent harm taking place on their services.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to confirm the federal government's commitment to a digital duty of care.
“The Greens communications spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said a digital duty of care “would force big tech giants to prevent harm before it happens – not just apologise after the damage is done”.”
❓
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
— No evidence in archive to verify Sarah Hanson-Young's statement about the digital duty of care.