I definitely see the similarity, at least in public response. I mean, I read that and thought, “$6 million? That’s life-changing money!” And when I read about what the victim experienced, I thought: “Addiction, anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. That’s all like, pretty common for teens these days. And often because of social media, for sure, but why is she specifically being compensated that much?”
For the McDonald’s trial, the woman tried to settle and had to get lawyers to pursue damages. Even though public response was bad, that feels like less of a cash grab.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik. Did she just have lawyer money and decide to? And nothing here changes, social media will remain the way it is. It definitely comes off to me as someone looking for a way to get money, even though I am happy with the ruling.
You’re right, nothing about this woman’s experience is particularly unique, which is what makes this a huge decision. The numbers of potential future plaintiffs (individual or class action) is enormous. The precedent opens the floodgates (and on the same day when New Mexico hit Meta with $345M for what Meta called “inevitable” child exploitation on their platform).
Social media is going to have their big tobacco moment one way or another.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik.
Based on the article, there are supposedly hundreds of these lawsuits. While I couldn’t say what caused her to sue, the outcome opens the floodgates. If anything, it’s accountability for some of the harms these platforms have profited on if it means they can now be sued for millions per person for it.
I definitely see the similarity, at least in public response. I mean, I read that and thought, “$6 million? That’s life-changing money!” And when I read about what the victim experienced, I thought: “Addiction, anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. That’s all like, pretty common for teens these days. And often because of social media, for sure, but why is she specifically being compensated that much?”
For the McDonald’s trial, the woman tried to settle and had to get lawyers to pursue damages. Even though public response was bad, that feels like less of a cash grab.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik. Did she just have lawyer money and decide to? And nothing here changes, social media will remain the way it is. It definitely comes off to me as someone looking for a way to get money, even though I am happy with the ruling.
I don’t get why it feels like doing it for money in the absence of a unique situation. Should they not sue because many others suffer the same way?
Even if they sue for money, before court it becomes neutral. The negative implication from your assumption seems unwarranted.
You’re right, nothing about this woman’s experience is particularly unique, which is what makes this a huge decision. The numbers of potential future plaintiffs (individual or class action) is enormous. The precedent opens the floodgates (and on the same day when New Mexico hit Meta with $345M for what Meta called “inevitable” child exploitation on their platform).
Social media is going to have their big tobacco moment one way or another.
Based on the article, there are supposedly hundreds of these lawsuits. While I couldn’t say what caused her to sue, the outcome opens the floodgates. If anything, it’s accountability for some of the harms these platforms have profited on if it means they can now be sued for millions per person for it.