[P-Marlowe]

Actually Meta and Google might have a tough time on appeal. The jury found as a matter of fact that:

1) the platforms were designed to cause addiction in children
2) the plaintiff became addicted as a child.
3) the plaintiff was injured and suffered damages as a result of the addiction.

Meta and Google are going to have to prove a legal error. The findings of fact by the jury are not subject to appeal.

[paulcissa]

This is huge in the legal realm for platform hosting and all other things “social-media”. They’ve proven harmful practices targeted at minors for profit. Think big tobacco.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Thanks for the clarification. Still, the jury could find the moon is made of green cheese … it doesn't make it so.

It seems to me that for someone "addicted" to something which is not a physical substance, would require a very high standard of proof. Someone who claims they are addicted to pornography, would only indicate that the person was of low moral character.

[Vaduz]

Agree

One has to wonder when Meta and Google drags a bag-o-cash into the court room for results?.

[whitney69]

Don’t take a stroll on the freeway.

wy69

[whitney69]

Don’t take a stroll on the freeway.

wy69

[SmokingJoe]

Grok;

Yes, Meta and Google have a realistic chance of winning (or at least significantly narrowing or reversing) on appeal, though it will be an uphill battle in some respects—exactly as you noted.

The jury's factual findings are strong for the plaintiff and very difficult to overturn, but appeals in California civil cases focus heavily on legal errors, not re-weighing the evidence. This verdict (issued today in Los Angeles Superior Court in the case of plaintiff K.G.M., a now-20-year-old woman) is a landmark bellwether, but it's far from the final word.