U.S. social media addiction trial jury struggles for consensus

Jurors resume deliberations on Tuesday in a landmark U.S. social media trial after signaling that they were having trouble agreeing when it comes to one of the two defendants, Meta and YouTube.

“The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant, do you have any advice on how to move forward?” the jurors told Judge Carolyn Kuhl, according to a note she read out loud.

Kuhl responded by asking the jurors to continue their deliberations.

“If you are unable to reach a verdict, the case will have to be applied before another jury selected in the same manner and from the same community from which you were chosen, and add additional cost to everyone,” she told the jurors.

The afternoon ended with no verdict, meaning the panel will return on Tuesday to continue its quest for consensus.

The jury’s first full week of deliberations ended Friday with the panel sending the judge a query related to calculating damages in the case, which is expected to set a precedent for thousands of similar suits in the United States.

That indicated enough jurors agreed that one or both of the tech platforms was negligently or harmfully designed and users should have been warned, according to verdict forms.

The lawsuit is one of hundreds accusing social media firms of luring young users into becoming addicted to their content and potentially suffering from depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation and even suicide.

Internet titans have long shielded themselves with Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which frees them of responsibility for what social media users post.

But this case argues that the firms are responsible for defective products, with business models designed to hold people’s attention and to promote content that can harm their mental health.

The verdict could turn on the question of whether familial strife and other real-world trauma, or rather YouTube and Meta apps such as Instagram, are to blame for the mental woes of the woman who filed the suit.

A 20-year-old California woman identified as Kaley G.M. testified at the trial that YouTube and Instagram fueled her depression and suicidal thoughts as a child, telling jurors that she became obsessed with social media, starting with YouTube videos, when she was six.

Under cross examination, however, Kaley also talked about feeling neglected, berated and picked on by family members.

A jury form given to jurors asks the panel to decide whether Meta or YouTube should have known their services posed a danger to children or if they were negligent in design.

If so, jurors are to decide if Meta or YouTube were “substantial factors” in causing Kaley’s woes and how much they should pay in damages.

The trial was selected as a “bellwether” proceeding, the outcome of which establishes a precedent for resolving other lawsuits that blame social media for fuelling an epidemic of mental and emotional trauma.

However, being unable to agree on a verdict regarding Meta or YouTube could result in a different case setting that standard.

“We’re reading tea leaves and we don’t know what they mean,” said plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier.

“I don’t think that we’re even remotely close to the issue of a mistrial.”