Defeat in court is just the beginning! Meta (META.US) and Alphabet Inc. Class C (GOOGL.US) are deeply embroiled in a lawsuit about social media addiction, and the future of the industry is uncertain.

Last week, a landmark lawsuit regarding social media addiction against Meta and Alphabet Inc. Class C received a ruling in Los Angeles, which may have a profound impact on the operation models of these two companies and their competitors. However, the road from the jury finding fault with Meta and Alphabet Inc. Class C to the two companies being forced to reform their respective platforms is long and convoluted, and ultimately, the changes may not even materialize. The jury pointed out during the trial that Meta and YouTube were aware of the harmful nature of their platform designs, which users found it difficult to perceive, and these two companies failed to provide warnings to users like any responsible platform would. The jury also ruled to compensate $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff in this case, a 20-year-old female code-named K.G.M. in legal documents and her mother Karen. Alphabet Inc. Class C and Meta have both stated that they will appeal. This lawsuit is seen as a potential watershed event, with parents, school districts, and state governments across America filing thousands of similar lawsuits against the two tech giants. However, experts suggest that the appeals process will continue for months and may involve controversies related to freedom of speech protections, and ultimately may even be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. If the plaintiffs win in the Supreme Court, it would be a devastating blow to Meta and Alphabet Inc. Class C, as well as spark significant controversies over internet speech freedom. Conversely, if the tech companies win, it would completely shut down the legal strategy used by the plaintiff's lawyers in this case. The future is uncertain, and the controversy over freedom of speech remains unresolved. The significance of this social media addiction lawsuit lies in its being seen as a litmus test for future lawsuits against Meta, Alphabet Inc. Class C, TikTok, Snap, and similar companies. The case number JCCP 5255 alleges that K.G.M.'s social media use since the age of 10 led to her "dangerous dependence on the products of these tech companies, resulting in anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphic disorder." Critics have long focused on the content hosted by social platforms, arguing that the content poses harm and negative influences on teenage users. However, Section 230 of the American Communications Decency Act states that internet companies are not liable for the content posted by users, and as long as they act in good faith to moderate "objectionable content" they are legally protected. This section has garnered criticism from both parties in America: Republicans accuse it of enabling tech companies to censor right-wing voices, while Democrats believe it fuels the spread of misinformation. In past judicial rulings, courts have mostly favored social and internet companies based on Section 230. However, the plaintiff's lawyers in this case took a different approach, focusing on the platform designs themselves, including features like infinite scrolling, likes, and message notifications, which ultimately led to this week's ruling. Timothy Edgar, a lecturer at Harvard Law School, stated in an interview that he expects social media platform companies to challenge the ruling based on algorithm and design choices falling under the category of freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. He explained that if the original ruling is upheld and companies are held responsible for such design decisions, it could have a chilling effect on the entire internet industry. "Indeed, we may welcome tech companies to take more social responsibility because of this. But what does that mean in practice? Do we need platforms to deliberately design service rules that restrict users from discussing controversial topics to achieve stricter control?" Edgar said. He also added, "I am concerned that looking back in the early 21st century, we will miss a much freer online environment than the next five to ten years." Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, believes that whether Section 230 applies to this case could ultimately push the case to the Supreme Court. "This is a new breakthrough in the plaintiff's litigation strategy... deliberately trying to circumvent the exemption provisions of Section 230 regarding content responsibility," Talley said. He further stated, "Therefore, under federal law, this circumvention approach might be deemed invalid. If this is indeed the case, claims brought by California and other states based on the same litigation logic will lose legal grounds." Talley expressed that if Meta and Alphabet Inc. Class C lose in the Supreme Court, their platform designs would not be protected by Section 230, and Congress may revise the law to include platform designs within the protection scope; even if they win, the two companies may voluntarily adjust their platform designs to address the issues raised in this case. Currently, global regulatory bodies are focusing on adolescent use of social media and mental health issues, putting social platforms under global regulatory pressure. Australia has banned the use of social media by minors under 16, and according to reports, many countries have followed suit: Brazil has now banned features like infinite scrolling, other countries either directly prohibit minors from using social media, or are drafting related legislation. Opponents of these bans argue that such restrictions will deprive adolescents of access to beneficial mental health support groups and communities online. In addition, the ban has sparked tricky privacy disputes, such as whether users mistakenly identified as minors need to present government-issued identification to verify their age. As the appeals process in this Los Angeles case begins, and more similar cases progress, the above issues and more related decisions will have a crucial impact on the online world, with the final outcome remaining uncertain.