K.G.M. is a 19-year-old young lady. She is the person acting as plaintiff in that high-profile case scheduled to start jury selection on January 27. She blamed big social media companies for creating algorithms that fed her addiction. This, in turn, worsened her mental health. The trial continues in the case against three remaining defendants. This move is fueling a firestorm of debate about social media companies’ duty to protect users’ welfare.
K.G.M.’s argument is that the platforms operated by these companies are more than just a means of communication. She contends that they have become engines of addiction. Her legal complaint centers around the design decisions these platforms have intentionally made to foster addictive behavior. This has directly worsened her mental health. This lawsuit could change how social media companies are held accountable. Here’s how it would radically change the narrative around how their platforms are affecting users.
At the heart of this case lies a crucial legal framework: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law is the main federal statute offering platforms protections from liability for content they host but do not create. In truth, Section 230 was created decades before any social media platform existed. Since then it has emerged as a central point of discussion in most legal debates over the appropriate level of accountability platforms should face.
That trial is coming up fast. It remains to be seen how the courts will interpret these laws in light of K.G.M.’s allegations. The outcome could set a precedent concerning the obligations of social media companies to mitigate potential harm arising from their algorithmic designs.
Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, released a statement with their pleasure at reaching an amicable resolution before going to trial.
“We are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner.” – Snap
This announcement represents a huge step toward that resolution, but the case against K.G.M. More importantly, it will try to address deeper questions about the platforms’ ethical obligations. With jury selection approaching, stakeholders across the tech industry and legal community are focused closely on the case. As they note in their opening line, this case could radically recast the regulatory terrain of social media.