CEOs of Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap will testify; The judge authorizes the security procedure
A little more than a year after Mark Zuckerberg joined other tech lords at Donald Trump’s second inauguration, the Meta CEO will find himself testifying in a Los Angeles court about the dangers and harm that Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and Snap are accused of inflicting on young users.
The increasingly MAGA-friendly billionaire’s presence was sealed after a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling on Wednesday rejected the social media companies’ immunity arguments. Meta, Google, current TikTok owner ByteDance, SNAP had hoped to see a consultation of cases involving serious mental health claims against them dismissed based on elements of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl rejected that claim, saying the platforms “were capable of causing the type of mental harm that was allegedly suffered.”
“The real question for this court is whether there is evidence that creates a controversial question of material fact as to whether the design features of Meta’s social media platforms were a substantial factor in causing RKC’s injuries,” the LASC judge wrote in his Nov. 5 ruling dismissing
summary judgment or summary judgment in one of the cases, first filed in 2023. “There is such evidence. »
“For example, RKC presented his own testimony that he was distracted, anxious, and sleep deprived due to the urge to check notifications sent by Meta. This controversial factual issue must be decided by the jury.”
Judge Kuhl’s ruling on behalf of plaintiffs Moore, KGM and RKC paves the way for a trial to begin January 27, 2026 in DTLA. At the heart of this first of many similar essays is the premise that social media, its algorithms, and its sticky attraction have serious consequences when it comes to depression, sleep disorders, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and anxiety.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Last month, after a legion of high-priced lawyers argued unsuccessfully that their CEO clients had somewhat limited knowledge of their own companies, Judge Kuhl determined that the often evasive Zuckerberg, along with SNAP boss Evan Spiegel and Instagram’s Adam Mosseri, should take the stand. As Senate members did in a sometimes volatile session with Zuckerberg (who would later pay Trump $25 million in a kneeling lawsuit settlement) Spiegel, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew and others in early 2024, the judge expected the CEOs appearing before her would offer “unique” testimony about the “addictive” and “compulsive” nature of their products used around the world.
“A CEO’s testimony is particularly relevant because that officer’s knowledge of harm and failure to take available steps to avoid such harm could establish negligence or a ratification of negligent conduct,” the LASC judge said with a dollop of understatement. With the trio of cases pending, it wouldn’t be unprecedented for tech companies to attempt to settle — or not.
In the case of YouTube, parent company Google is pushing the judge and the cases just don’t get it.
“These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true,” a Google spokesperson told Deadline today. “YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts from their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to meet up with their friends. We’ve also developed dedicated tools like Supervised Youth Experiences, guided by child safety experts, that put families in control.”
Representatives. for Zuckerberg’s Meta, ByteDance’s TikTok and Snap did not respond to request for comment on Judge Kuhl’s latest ruling.
“These decisions affirm that technology companies must be held accountable for the design choices they make, choices that can profoundly affect the mental health of young users,” said plaintiffs’ attorneys from Kiesel Law, Lanier Law Firm, Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and Beasley Allen said Thursday. “We are grateful that the Court recognized the importance of letting a jury decide whether these platforms caused harm to these plaintiffs.”
Which, in a sort of social calculus, is how a lawyer gives a similar ruling.
