‘This verdict is not the end — it’s a beginning.’ Carol Todd vows to keep fighting after court found Facebook and YouTube addictive and harmful

Meta and YouTube were recently found liable for a total of $6 million after a California jury determined their social media platform and streaming site were addictive and harmful to children.

The verdict followed a recent case in New Mexico that ended with Meta being hit with $375-million in civil penalties after a jury found the platform allowed for harm that included child sexual exploitation.

Reflecting on the California case, Carol Todd thanked the many parents who “fought tirelessly for safer digital spaces.”

Following the death of her daughter Amanda, Todd founded the Amanda Todd Legacy Society in an effort to prevent youth from suffering abuse and exploitation.

“And to the children and teens whose stories fuel this movement, you are seen, valued, and deeply loved,” Todd wrote in a post on social media.

Todd also wrote about the importance of continue the fight.

“This verdict is not the end — it’s a beginning,” she wrote, adding that many other lawsuits remain pending.

Twelve years after the death of her daughter, who suffered extensive online sextortion and harassment as a teen, Todd filed a lawsuit targeting Meta, Snap, TikTok, Google, YouTube, and Discord.

Filed in 2024, the suit includes 10 other families, each of whom reported their children using social media platforms and subsequently suffering from depression and anxiety.

Speaking to CBC, Google contended the lawsuit’s allegations aren’t true. A spokesperson for the company explained its services are built with parental controls and provide age-appropriate experiences.

The lawsuit alleges the companies all marketed their products to children, quoting an internal email written sent from a Meta product designer which stated: “the young ones are the best ones. You want to bring people to your service young and early.”

The companies kept young people online and engaged by employing several techniques. Those techniques include incessant notifications, cultivating an “endless feed to keep users scrolling,” intermittent rewards to trigger dopamine and “’trophies’ to reward extreme usage,” the lawsuit stated.

YouTube utilizes algorithmic recommendations that reinforce political biases and sometimes lead to radicalization, according to the suit.

The suit leans on a study by the Anti-Defamation League which found: “exposure to alternative YouTube channels can serve as gateways to extremist or white supremacist channels.”

The lawsuit was launched in California because each of the companies have places of business in California and are: “essentially at home in this state,” the suit stated.

None of the charges have been proven in court.