In a California courtroom, Kaylee, a plaintiff in her 20s, testified: "Every time I tried to set limits for myself, it didn't work. I just couldn't turn it off." She had been using YouTube since age 6 and Instagram since age 9. Depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia followed. In March this year, jurors determined that this was not Kaylee's weakness but a design flaw in the platforms. Infinite scroll, autoplay, constant notifications and recommendations—all of these were "defective products" that conditioned a child's brain.
Meta and Google received a verdict ordering them to pay $6 million (approximately 8.1 billion won) in damages. This amounts to 0.001% of the two companies' combined annual revenue of approximately $600 billion. It's equivalent to fining someone earning 50 million won annually just 500 won. The monetary weight is light. But what makes this ruling historic is not the numbers. For the first time, Big Tech companies that have hidden behind the "we are not responsible for content" immunity clause for nearly 30 years have been held accountable. Kaylee's trial is a bellwether case that will determine the direction of thousands of similar pending lawsuits. Legal experts compare it to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s that shook an entire industry.
While courts moved slowly, governments around the world acted first. In December last year, Australia became the first country in the world to completely ban social media use for those under 16. Violators face fines of up to 48 billion won—imposed on the platforms, not the users. Within one month of implementation, 4.7 million accounts disappeared. In March this year, Indonesia became the first Asian country to implement the same measure. Denmark, Brazil, and Malaysia are following suit.
The harm of tobacco was known for decades, but regulation came much later. The same applies to underage drinking. While the ban on selling alcohol to those under 18 is not always perfectly enforced, we know the regulation itself is the right thing to do. Similarly, while some teenagers use VPNs to bypass restrictions and access social media, when the door narrows, fewer people will enter.
Criticism is also substantial. The Australian Human Rights Commission pointed out that the law could violate human rights by preventing youth from social participation. For LGBTQ youth or immigrant teenagers, social media may be virtually their only supportive community. However, this is not a reason to do nothing. The essence of this fight is singular: who bears responsibility for the addiction designed by algorithms? Platforms have argued, "We only built the bridge; we are not responsible for the actions of those who walk across it." Kaylee's jury determined that the bridge itself was a trap.
The issue is not prohibition versus permission, but what design will provide protection. Kaylee's story is not something happening only in faraway courtrooms. Watching my middle school daughter unable to put down her smartphone all day, I come to acknowledge that the trap of design has been laid inside our own homes. We must seriously consider whether we ourselves have been tolerating the flawed design of platforms.
