YouTube’s lawyer claims the platform is not addictive social media, as a landmark US trial over child harm enters its second day with expert testimony.
LOS ANGELES: A lawyer for YouTube insisted the platform is neither intentionally addictive nor technically social media.
The arguments came on the trial’s second day in a landmark US case targeting tech giants.
YouTube and Meta are defendants in the blockbuster Los Angeles trial. The outcome could set a legal precedent on whether social media firms deliberately designed addictive platforms for children.
“It’s not social media addiction when it’s not social media and it’s not addiction,” lawyer Luis Li told the 12 jurors. His opening arguments followed remarks from lawyers for the plaintiffs and co-defendant Meta on Monday.
The civil trial centres on allegations that a 20-year-old woman suffered severe mental harm. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., allegedly became addicted to social media as a child.
She started using YouTube at six and joined Instagram at 11. She moved on to Snapchat and TikTok two or three years later.
The plaintiff “is not addicted to YouTube. You can listen to her own words — she said so, her doctor said so, her father said so,” Li said. He cited evidence he said would be detailed at trial.
Li tried to draw a clear line between YouTube’s video app and social media platforms like Instagram. He argued he did not recognise the description of YouTube put forth by the plaintiffs.
YouTube sells “the ability to watch something essentially for free on your computer, on your phone, on your iPad,” Li insisted. He compared the service to Netflix or traditional television.
“More people watch YouTube on television than they do on their phones or their devices. More people watch YouTube than cable TV,” he said.
Li argued users come to the platform to learn new hobbies or become famous. He said it was the quality of content that kept users coming back, not an infinite scroll.
He cited internal company emails showing executives rejected a pursuit of internet virality. Instead, they favoured educational and more socially useful content, he said.
Stanford University professor Anna Lembke was the first witness called by the plaintiffs. She testified that she views social media, broadly speaking, as a drug.
The part of the brain that acts as a brake is not typically developed before age 25. Lembke, author of “Dopamine Nation,” told jurors this explains why teenagers often take risks.
“And typically, the gateway drug is the most easily accessible drug,” she testified. She described Kaley’s first use of YouTube at age six.
The case is a bellwether proceeding whose outcome could set the tone for similar US litigation. Social media firms face hundreds of lawsuits accusing them of harming young users.
The lawsuits allege platforms lead to depression, eating disorders, and even suicide. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are borrowing strategies used against the tobacco industry in the 1990s and 2000s.
