For nearly three decades, Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act was the most effective line of defence for technology giants. This provision, which protects platforms from liability for user content, was the foundation on which the giants Meta or Google grew. However, recent jury verdicts in California and New Mexico suggest that the era of impunity based on this provision is coming to an end, and the focus of litigation is shifting from the content itself to the architecture of the systems.
In Los Angeles, a jury found Meta and Google liable for a young woman’s mental health problems, ordering the payment of $6 million in damages. An even more severe blow fell on Meta in New Mexico, where it was ordered to pay $375 million for misrepresenting the safety of its products and allowing abuse of minors. The key here, however, is not the damages themselves, but the legal strategy: the plaintiffs successfully proved that it was not the specific post or video that was harmful, but the deliberate design of the algorithms and interfaces to addict the user.
Courts are beginning to distinguish between a platform’s role as a ‘transmitter’ of information and its role as a ‘designer’ of experiences. If these rulings hold up in the appellate processes, every product feature – from the infinite scroll mechanism to recommendation systems – could become the basis for multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
The risk is not limited to social media. Similar battles are already being fought by Roblox, and experts warn that all platforms hosting user-generated content, including gaming or e-commerce sites, could be targeted.
Although Meta and Google are announcing a fight in the higher courts, the mood in the US legal system is changing. Even Supreme Court judges are suggesting that Section 230 cannot be a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ that exempts companies from elementary concern for the safety of their customers. For technology leaders, the time is coming when an ethical audit of algorithms will become as important as a financial audit. The outcome of the upcoming appeals will not only decide the fate of thousands of pending cases, but will set new rules of the game for the entire digital economy.
