“ These parents are trying so hard, trying to use parental controls, but these platforms are intentionally thwarting parental authority, making it technologically difficult, if not impossible, for parents to exercise their authority,” he explained.“ These companies are addicting kids, lying to families, lying to kids, and lying to Congress, and I can’ t think of a more categorical right and wrong.”
According to Bergman, among the many salient things the internal documents brought to light, first and foremost, was the knowledge that the companies had that parental control doesn’ t work and that where the parents are involved and engaged, it doesn’ t impact the level of addiction. More important, he added, was the companies’ knowledge and exploitation that kids with underlying mental health challenges are more susceptible to social media abuse and more susceptible to mental health harms.
“ This enabled Mark Lanier to frame his narrative at trial on the premise that they’ re preying on the vulnerable,” Bergman said.“ And I think that really was the icing on the cake, or the nail in the coffin, or the fork in the steak, or whatever you wanted to call it. That really allowed the strength of these cases to shine through.”
The Value Of User Data
The data that social media companies gather is astronomical. As Bergman put it,“ They know more about us than we know about ourselves.” He referenced a famous article,“ TikTok Predicted My Sexuality. Is That A Good Thing?” by Audrey Carter, published on Medium on October 22, 2022. While the piece explored social media as having a potentially validating role in identity discovery, it also highlighted a troubling reality— that these platforms collect and process sensitive information, including sexual orientation.
According to Bergman, state AGs are“ appropriately” seeking access by third-party researchers to the data gathered by these companies, because they know a lot more about how harmful their platforms are than independent researchers who have to work with self-reported statements on social media.
The tech companies, however, are not giving this data up— or not without a fight, anyway. The data is gold, even more so than advertising dollars, and Big Tech wants to monetize it, Bergman explained.
The Way Out
“ You can turn off the algorithms and show kids what they want to see, not what they can’ t look away from.
Given the nature of addiction, the ubiquity of the object of the addiction( social media), and suppliers’ financially driven interests, a clear concern emerges: Is there a way out of the abyss— a clear path for climbing our way out of a corporatedriven mechanism whose business model is based on addicting users? If not, what’ s this litigation all about?
The answer, according to Bergman is yes, there is a viable way out. The solution comes in the form of design changes that are readily available and, in most cases, have been contemplated by platforms— and declined— because their profit model is based on maximizing engagement. That means the more time a kid spends online, the more advertising these platforms sell.
The business model was spelled out and revealed at trial in internal documents, including a YouTube communication that blatantly stated,“ Goal is not viewership, it’ s viewer addiction.”
“ I think that it was extremely revelatory on juries to see that YouTube deliberately, sought to explicitly make their platforms addictive to kids,” Bergman said,“ all in the name of profit.”
However, Bergman argues that a subscription model would provide another vehicle for creating profits— an alternative to the ad-driven model that current addictive algorithms were designed to feed:“ You can turn off the algorithms and show kids what they want to see, not what they can’ t look away from. It would be about the quality of the online experience, and you wouldn’ t have to addict kids in order to obtain money,” he said.
Bergman said he sees a societal shift that brings a significant measure of hope, taking his cue from the shift in attitudes toward drunk driving over the years.“ When I was a teenager, drunk driving was ubiquitous,” he said.“ Every year, a number of kids would die on the highways, particularly in rural areas where you had to drive to get anywhere. Then we had a complete change in the law and in the culture. We had Mothers Against Drunk Driving( M. A. D. D.), which advocated legal change. Drunk driving became a crime, not just a slap on the wrist.”
He also noted the eventual shift in cultural attitudes toward drunk driving.“ It was no longer okay, and we developed a culture where kids could call their parents and ask for a ride home, no questions asked. Where you could tell your buddy,‘ Hey dude, you’ re not okay to drive’ without insulting his masculinity. And now, the number of drunk driving fatalities among teens is a fraction of what it was 45 years ago.”
Bergman believes social media could experience the same shift as drunk driving, and it all starts with holding tech companies accountable, because“ moral persuasion does not work.” He said in the K. G. M trial, it became“ eminently clear that many people of conscience within social media companies are crying out for systemic change to make the platforms safer.” Unfortunately, the beating drums of profit drown out those cries.
Public humiliation and bad PR are equally ineffective at affecting change, according to Bergman, who pointed to the number of times that top executives have been excoriated before Congress, to no avail.
“ What will work is changing their economic model,” he explained.“ Basic, old-fashioned product liability. When you internalize the cost of safety, when the cost of a dangerous social media product is higher than a safe one, they’ ll change their behavior. So, what we’ re doing through the tort system, what Mark Lanier did with such incredible aplomb in the trial, was
The Trial Lawyer 71