Meta's exit raises stakes for Snap in social media addiction trial

Meta's latest settlement in Los Angeles' social media addiction litigation has left Snap Inc. alone to face two plaintiffs at trial, a position legal observers say could increase pressure on the Snapchat parent to reach its own agreement before opening statements in the coming days.

The confidential settlement with plaintiff K.D.B., an 18-year-old from Mississippi, was announced Friday, two days after jury selection began before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl.

The other plaintiff, an Illinois minor identified as S.J., previously settled her claims against Meta, while TikTok and Google's YouTube resolved claims brought by both plaintiffs before trial.

Withers partner Jessica K. Nall, who is not involved in the litigation, said Meta's departure could put Snap in a difficult position, particularly given unresolved questions about which platforms may have contributed to the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.

"Being the cheese that stands alone is an unpleasant place for them to be," Nall said.

Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor who is also not involved in the cases, similarly suggested that Snap may seek to settle rather than proceed as the sole defendant.

He explained that going to trial alone creates the risk of jurors potentially blaming Snap for injuries caused by other platforms.

However, he said having multiple defendants presents its own challenges, as companies may try to shift responsibility onto one another, potentially complicating their defenses.

"Having multiple defendants in a bellwether case necessarily creates a game theory problem," Goldman said. "It's basically a form of prisoner's dilemma. When one of the defendants cuts a deal, it impacts the other defendants and potentially puts them in a worse position."

S.J. and K.D.B. both allege that compulsive use of Snapchat beginning in childhood contributed to depression, anxiety, eating disorders and self-harm. K.D.B. also alleges experiencing suicidal thoughts.

Opening statements are scheduled for Wednesday.

Nall said the absence of other defendants does not eliminate the causation questions that have complicated the litigation, particularly when plaintiffs used multiple social media platforms. She said evidence showing relatively limited Snapchat use could strengthen Snap's defense and result in a possible defense verdict.

Meta's latest settlement also raises questions about its broader litigation strategy following its agreement in August to pay up to $17 billion to resolve claims brought by state attorneys general over children's data and platform safety.

Goldman suggested that the federal settlement, which also requires changes to Facebook and Instagram, may have diminished Meta's willingness to continue litigating individual claims.

"Meta has shown that it is willing to open up the checkbook and write sizeable checks to resolve its liability," Goldman said.

"In that sense, now that Meta has already reached a financial deal and agreed to product reforms with the state AGs, the rest of the litigation feels like a legacy liability to Meta."

Nall similarly suggested that Meta may be seeking to avoid additional negative publicity from trials involving allegations of harm to children.

"If they're going to take the high ground and say, 'We've made all these platform changes,' then that's a message they don't want to have undermined by being engaged in one of these trials," Nall said.

The first bellwether trial in the coordinated Los Angeles litigation ended in March with a $6 million verdict against Meta and YouTube, including $3 million in punitive damages. Social Media Cases, JCCP5255 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 24, 2022).

Lowenstein Sandler LLP partner Amy S. Mushahwar, who is not involved in the litigation, said the significance of that verdict lies less in its dollar amount than in the jury's findings, including its decision to assign Meta 70% of the responsibility and award punitive damages.

"The number is modest; the findings are not," she said.

Nall said that verdict, while relatively modest for the companies involved, could provide a reference point for settlement negotiations, although individual circumstances and evidence of platform use would affect the value of future claims.

She also questioned whether the first verdict would prove representative of future trials, noting that companies may want to avoid the risk of substantially larger awards.

Goldman cautioned against drawing broad conclusions from individual settlements, explaining that bellwether trials are intended to provide data points for evaluating the larger litigation rather than set legal precedent.

Mushahwar said the upcoming trial could also test whether the plaintiffs' addictive design theory extends beyond feed-based platforms such as Instagram to Snapchat's messaging features, including streaks and disappearing content.

"The defendants are diverging, not converging," she said, pointing to Meta's recent settlements and Snap's decision to proceed to trial.

S.J. and K.D.B. are represented at trial by Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm. He also represented the plaintiff in the first trial.

Snap's trial counsel includes Kirkland & Ellis LLP partners Andrew LeGrand and Tara Blake.