More litigation to come following Meta ruling, says Harvard Law Professor

AI Summary

Harvard Law School Professor Glenn Cohen discusses the legal implications of recent verdicts against Meta and YouTube, particularly concerning Section 230 immunity. He notes that Meta has had a challenging week, with a large verdict in New Mexico related to public nuisance and a bellwether case in Los Angeles, which is one of several thousand consolidated pieces of litigation. Cohen believes the $6 million payout, split between Meta and YouTube, is significant enough to encourage further litigation and inflate settlement demands, contrary to Wall Street's view that the payouts are too low to warrant more cases. He highlights Meta's rejected Section 230 immunity defense, emphasizing the critical legal distinction between product design (like infinite scroll) and content, which will be central to future appeals, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. Cohen also points out that Snap and TikTok, initially named in the Los Angeles case, settled after a negative Section 230 ruling, indicating their vulnerability to similar lawsuits. He advises tech companies to pursue legal victories on Section 230 and causation arguments, while publicly demonstrating efforts to make platforms safer to avoid being perceived as 'public enemy number one' regarding social media addiction. Cohen observes that social media is now being framed alongside public health problems like tobacco and opioids, but he is skeptical that Congress will act quickly to legislate new guardrails due to the complexity of rewriting laws to satisfy constituents.

Claims Extracted (10)