Do you think those changes are significant?

The changes are important in part because META has resisted them for quite some time.

And META has obviously flipped internally and decided that they could live with these particular changes.

So the state AGs were able to accomplish something that regulators around the globe have had difficulty forcing META to do.

What's less clear is if these changes are in the best interest of the constituents that the state attorneys general seek to serve.

We don't know if any of these changes solve the, quote, mental health crisis.

We don't know if any of these changes materially benefit any population of users.

Is that what this is really about?

Do you think those changes are significant?

The changes are important in part because META has resisted them for quite some time.

And META has obviously flipped internally and decided that they could live with these particular changes.

So the state AGs were able to accomplish something that regulators around the globe have had difficulty forcing META to do.

What's less clear is if these changes are in the best interest of the constituents that the state attorneys general seek to serve.

We don't know if any of these changes solve the, quote, mental health crisis.

We don't know if any of these changes materially benefit any population of users.

Is that what this is really about?

Is that the argument they're going to make is that these bells and whistles and dings somehow plays with our dopamine and that's what we're addicted to?

Partially.

You're on the right track, but there are other ways for social media services to create what you're describing as the bells and whistles that aren't just flashing lights or loud sounds.

For example, one of the alleged design defects is things like autoplay or infinite scroll, that there's no natural break in the consumption of content.

And so people are just continuing on autopilot to consume content that maybe they don't want.

And there's been discussion about things like the number of followers and the count or the number of likes that a particular post receives is another way being what you're describing as bells and whistles, some form of dopamine-inducing reaction that is measurable.

So those are all part of it.

And yet they hold TV and radio to a completely different standard.

The changes to the platforms that the state AGs are asking for, would they change the very essence of the way these companies' social media platforms work?

Unquestionably, the structural remedies that are being ordered by courts and also mandated by legislatures will change how social media operates.

What's less clear today is if they're going to change it in a way that will materially affect our willingness to use them.

And I'm going to give you an example because I think it's so helpful.

The New Mexico judge set a cap on the number of hours that a user could use the service in a month.

Now, that cap was pretty generous.

That's a lot of hours.

The verdict was six million dollars.

Are the changes to the platforms that the state AGs are asking for, would they change the very essence of the way these companies' social media platforms work?

Unquestionably, the structural remedies that are being ordered by courts and also mandated by legislatures will change how social media operates.

What's less clear today is if they're going to change it in a way that will materially affect our willingness to use them.

And I'm going to give you an example because I think it's so helpful.

The New Mexico judge set a cap on the number of hours that a user could use the service in a month.

Now, that cap was pretty generous.

That's a lot of hours.

and worldwide to limit them?

Just talk about what happened and what those rulings mean.

Um, hi, everyone.

Thanks for joining us today.

Uh, and, um, joining this conversation, which we scheduled immediately after the trials.

Uh, sorry, am I muted? Am I coming through okay? Um, and, uh, y- when we do that, you never know if it's still gonna be timely or not, but there's so much going on that continues to take place even today that, um, uh, we got lots to talk about from the past, we got lots to talk about in the future.

So thank you for joining us, um, for exploring this topic.

Um, let's start with the basic structure, that there are two, uh, consolidated cases moving through the California court systems, one in the federal court and one in state court.

Um, but this is a new, uh, diagnosis because we've been pumped with so much dopamine over, and over, and over, and over, uh, that, that, uh, that really it, it's, I, I just don't think we fully comprehend the day in and the day out, uh, uh, uh, effect of what, of what the social media companies have, have, have essentially done here.

So do you think that this will lead social media companies to change the way they operate?

I think that it would be remarkable if social media doesn't change substantially over the next few years.

If the final outcome in a few years from now is that social media has retained the status quo it has today, I think that would be remarkable.

And it's not just because of the litigation, though, if the plaintiffs win any part of the litigation, almost certainly the court will order changes to the service or any settlement agreement would require changes to the services.

But the reason why I'm so confident that social media is under extraordinary pressure to change is because in addition to the litigation, state legislatures throughout the country are passing laws that are requiring structural and tactical changes to how the services operate.

And unless the services can also overturn all of those laws, those laws are actually the governing rules that will dictate how social media services operate.

So as a practical matter, the litigation is only one path towards change.

Do you see a direct comparison?

Do you see a direct comparison?

Yes and no.

So let me reject the analogy, but then I'll come back to how there's some kernel of truths to it.

So in general, start with something like tobacco.

Uh, tobacco has no known health benefits to its consumers.

It's only either neutral to their health or it's negative.

Whereas with social media, we know that it has substantial benefits to its users, in addition to some users deriving potentially significant detriments from it.

Can you tell me more about that?

Okay.

Um, and they've been joining these lawsuits.

Um, the lawyers, of course, are helping them, and each trying to...

Each lawyer is trying to add to their portfolio of plaintiffs that they, uh, have, that they're representing.

Um, so but whether they're actually going to get any recognition from the court or money, they'll have to make their case eventually.

So that's part of why the, the trial was held that, that led to the verdict that came out this week.

What they did in the California State Court case is they said, "We're gonna pick three plaintiffs, so we're gonna do what are called bellwether trials.

Mm-hmm.

One of the things that you're cited as, as looking at is the level of damages awarded in this specific case, and I think we discussed in prior conversations the context that there are other legal proceedings going alongside this in parallel with this case, but why focusing on the damages? Why is that important?

important?It allows the parties to start to estimate how much money are we even talking about.

And until we got a data point like the jury verdict, really, the parties couldn't even imagine, uh, any agreement.

They were so far apart.

Um, now we can start to quantify the numbers.

If there's three thousand plaintiffs that are currently pending, we're talking about roughly close to twenty billion dollars.

Now, those are numbers that are huge, and yet they are numbers that Google and Meta might think that they can afford.

Eric, what do you make of those arguments?

Sometimes, the meaning of certain emojis can get pretty dark and even veer into criminal territory.

Let me give you an example of an emoji that has slang usage.

The crown emoji has very specific meaning in the sex trafficking context.

It's basically used to signal the relationship between a pimp and a sex worker, where the sex worker is either admitting to some subordinate relationship or is being offered to take on that subordinate relationship.

They also looked at past contracts that were approved in a similar way, with a brief "Okay" or "Yup" sent over text.

And so the court says, looking at the emoji in the context of the conversation and with the context of past dealings with each other, it looks like that thumbs up was an assent to the contract, but I think that the court's methodology, not just to look at the emoji in the abstract but to put it in context, was exactly what we would hope the courts would do.

And I think based on that, to me, it looked like the court got the right outcome.