← Scrolling 2 Death![[PRE-TRIAL] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial | What This Trial Means for Parents — Scrolling 2 Death cover](https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_episode/39685433/39685433-1769280242836-86881e0353422.jpg)
Scrolling 2 Death
[PRE-TRIAL] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial | What This Trial Means for Parents
00:46:42
Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:03]
A
Sarah, I just walked out from this hearing today and what I'm hearing are a bunch of attorneys talking about algorithms and juries and documents. And what I think we're really talking about today is the story of children being harmed by these companies.
- [00:17]
B
When this trial actually goes to trial, it's not just going to be all of us sitting in that courtroom, but it's also going to be the kids who we've lost join there with us. Like this is life and death we're talking about.
- [00:29]
A
Yeah, we're here for the families and to spread awareness about what's happening not just in these 3,000 plus families homes, but in millions of homes all around the world.
- [00:37]
B
And that's why it's so important that we keep you updated because parents deserve to know what's happening in there.
- [00:43]
A
Yeah, you deserve to know. The Heat is On is a scrolling to death production in partnership with Heat Initiative. In past episodes, we've taken you behind the scenes of some of the most powerful companies in the world. Apple, Snap, and Meta. Companies that have made trillions of dollars engineering products designed to keep us and our children hooked. Now families are fighting back. Today, we begin something different. A journey through what some are calling the trial of the century. Thousands of families and school districts in 29 US states have sued four major social media companies, alleging that these platforms harmed and addicted millions of minors. Inside a courtroom in Los Angeles, a jury will watch as Big Tech defends its business model against families who look just like ours. And we will be there. We'll be sitting in the courtroom so you don't have to translating complex legal arguments into something that matters. This will mean something for how you parent tonight and what our digital future will look like.
- [01:53]
B
We're trying to empower parents like us, like you, to make safer choices at home and mobilize us beyond our homes. And we need to unify our voices against companies whose business models are harming children. Our kids, and demand that they do better.
- [02:09]
A
Because this isn't just about screen time. It's about accountability. It's about protecting our children. I'm Nikki Petrosi.
- [02:16]
B
And I'm Sarah Gardner.
- [02:18]
A
This is the Heat is On. Big Tech on trial. So, Sarah, we're going to break down this trial for parents as we prepare to start jury selection on January 27th. And this trial really is about addiction. It's about what these companies knew, when they knew it, and how they chose to push forward anyways.
- [02:40]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think we've been talking about how these are the tobacco trials of our time and honestly been studying the arc of how tobacco companies were held accountable. And it's so eerily similar where it was like, at the beginning they were allowed to market to kids and adults, and then they knew it was addictive, but then outside scientists realized it was addictive, right? And then all that came out in the public, and then it. And then everyone realized, wait, you can't market these to kids. Like, that's the moment we're in. The difference here is like, we've all known it's addictive maybe for a while, but now we're going to know how much they knew it and how much they hid it. And I think that's the. That's the difference. And that will hopefully be sort of the damning reality that comes out of it for these companies is they can no longer be like, oh, hands off, we, you know, it's not us, it's other people putting stuff online.
- [03:35]
A
That's what I've had to come to with this. Like a realization with this trial is, you said it, we all kind of know that it's addictive. We all would be like, of course they designed it to be addictive. And that's what we're seeing in the discovery documents is they were designing for addiction. But here they are spending many millions of dollars, these social media companies, to defend themselves, trying to convince everyone that they, they didn't addict on purpose or that it's not actually addictive to young people. So it just has been hard to push through. Like, why are we even here when we all kind of know already? So we have never gotten this far because of legal immunities that these companies have been enjoying and able to grow exponentially to the biggest companies in the world because of these legal immunities. This whole legal situation is complicated. So we had several conversations with attorneys that are working the this case and these cases to break it down. And now I'm going to cut to our chat with Laura Marquez Garrett, attorney at the Social Media Victims Law center, who represents some of these affected families to help us understand how what's all
- [04:45]
C
going on Here, thousands of US families, including some UK families, are suing Meta, Snap, TikTok, Google for harms to kids, addiction, depression, anxiety, all of the things that typically arise from addiction and sleep deprivation. The first of those was filed in January 2020. We've been in discovery. Those lawsuits are now proceeding to trials.
- [05:08]
B
This is really like an Erin Brockovich moment where you have, like, normal, everyday families going up against the richest companies in the world. I Know, Nikki, you've already talked about in a lot of your coverage, like watching the fancy attorneys show up, but this really is a David and Goliath situation. And the fact that these cases haven't been dismissed is huge. That we actually get to put them up on trial, on the stand, have the CEOs testifying, like, what a moment
- [05:39]
C
in the mind of these companies. The plaintiffs were never supposed to get into the courthouse. They believed that they were untouchable. And they being these companies, they believed that the public had no right to see what was behind the curtain in their documents. And they fought hard to get these cases thrown out before we could even get the most basic information. And, you know, the. The importance of it, the entire judicial system, the way it works, and the reason it works is because there's this basic level of accountability, this basic assumption that when people are getting hurt, they're going to have the right to at least knock on the courthouse door and say, look, please look into this. And then we get discovery, which is this process of being able to ask questions and get documents. And effectively, by claiming that they were immune from litigation, they got rid of discovery and they made it so that nobody knew what was happening behind closed doors. And this is the. Now we get to see what finally is going to happen is that the public is going to get a chance to see what was happening, to see what these companies knew, to see what they were doing, and hopefully to see the real impact that had on our children.
- [06:49]
B
If their intention was to harm, or maybe it's even that they knew there was harm and they didn't stop it.
- [06:56]
A
Sure. Yeah. Which there's a difference there, I guess. But when they're studying young people's brains and pointing to areas of the brain to stimulate and create dependence, like that feels like intention to harm.
- [07:07]
B
Oh, addiction wise, a hundred percent. I think there's other harms that happen on platforms that mirror harms that happen in real life. And those are the moments where you can, like, lean in and fix it or ignore it. But you're right, the basics of how Instagram works, as we all know, is for you to stay there and spend more time there and be more addictive, addicted to it. So, yeah, that part is not going to be surprising that it was addictive for sure.
- [07:33]
D
Right.
- [07:33]
A
And I watched a clip of an interview with Sheryl Sandberg, who used to be with Facebook, and she was talking about the move fast break things mentality of they don't wait to make sure they get things perfect. They tech companies throw things out into the world. They get feedback from the users, from people who use it, and then they iterate and they iterate and they iterate and they fix things that they. They should be fixing things that may be wrong or maybe instigating harm. And that's where they had the chance to fix it over the past 10, 15 years. And it's seeming like they just didn't fix it. I want to simplify even more. We emailed with another attorney, and this is Previn Warren with a firm called Motley Rice. They represent thousands of these families, school districts and states. Previn helps steer the whole litigation. He's overseen the discovery process, and he's one of the attorneys representing this first child, who we're going to talk about in a moment that we're calling kgm. Previn helped us understand how this all is going to go down. So we have families, schools, and states suing these four companies, TikTok, YouTube, Meta, and Snap, for such similar harms that the lawsuits were consolidated into two different groups. We have group one, the JCCP was filed in California state court. And this is over 3,000 families suing these four companies. Group two, sometimes called the MDL, is filed in California federal court. This is another a thousand families, but also the school districts and the state's attorneys general. So there's two groupings, and the first one we're going to follow, the first trial here in January is the jccp, and that is going to be one family at a time.
- [09:14]
B
That was the clearest I've ever heard it. So thank you for that. I mean, you're welcome. Just knowing there are a lot of acronyms with this and you can decide to try and figure that part out or not, but we're going to help you understand what's going on. Big picture. I think the biggest thing that you just said is it's the combining of families and state attorney generals and school districts that make these lawsuits so powerful and honestly scarier to the companies, unfortunately, because it starts to get into the realm of, like, real serious damages and. Or like policy changes that they're going to have to make. But I did want to ask you, why do you think the school districts are involved in these trials?
- [09:56]
A
Yeah, so Previn answered that, too. And thank you to Previn for breaking this down in a way that was super simple. But school districts are seeing harm because so many of their students are addicted and struggling because of social media, that this is leading to disruptions in the educational environment, lots of money spent on mental health support Social media instigates bullying and drug use and all kinds of things at school that the schools are having to spend a ton of money and hire additional people to deal with. And so schools are feeling the pressure here too. And then we mentioned states. So we also have states attorneys general of certain states suing and this is specific to Meta for this one. And this relies more on data protection, so we don't have to go into that a lot. But basically the Children's Online Privacy and Protection act, called COPPA for short, says that platforms shouldn't let kids under 13 use their products unless parents have given consent. And the AGs of these states are alleging that Meta violated that law.
- [11:01]
B
Yeah, there's one thing that you said that I want to go back to because a reporter was actually asking me about this recently, which is I, for all those sort of economists, business minded people out there, I think it's important to make the connection to between how damaging these platforms are and that weighing on other systems that we pay for as taxpayers and as like the idea that it's like first and foremost we care about it because it's hurting kids. Right. So there's the moral imperative. But unfortunately, as we know a lot of times, morality doesn't necessarily win in this world. However, I think when you can also then make the case that these companies are putting pressure and weighing on all these different systems that support human beings like, then you that starts to create even a stronger case for why this is so bad. Not just even to individual families, but to society as a whole. Right. So that was just one thing I wanted to pick up on how you talked about the connection and I think again the power of this case being sort of multifaceted like this, of looking at how it hurts schools, ags are saying how it's broken the law, families are saying how it's harmed kids and all of that together makes it so powerful.
- [12:18]
A
Yeah, I mean everyone has felt harm because of these platforms decisions and the implications. The implications affect everyone. And the implications of this, the result of the trial will affect everybody too. And we're going to talk about that a bit later.
- [12:31]
B
Even though we're throwing around a lot of legal jargon and you know, big fancy words about all the lawsuits, at the end of the day this is about real people and what's happened to them. And we spoke to Lori Shot, who is lost her daughter Annalee to these harms and it was a real grounding moment when we spoke to her to remind us of really why you and I are Focused on this. Why? Our Like Heat initiative, the organization is focused on this because people have been harmed and harmed at such a scale. So we'd like to share that with you.
- [13:07]
A
Seeing what Ana got served in her social media feeds has been something I can't get out of my head. And actually I did a. Even a Snapchat test account over the past year, but I just, I checked on it yesterday and it reminded me the. The steady stream of suicide and depression content reminded me of what was pushed to Ana. And this was years ago. And it seems to be still happening on these platforms, which is just another reminder that we need to push hard and. And win this fight because kids are still getting pushed this type of content. But let. Let's go to our chat with Lori. I'm so excited to introduce listeners to her.
- [13:48]
D
They harmed my daughter. They killed my daughter. They have harmed so many children. They were designing platforms that were addicting kids and pushing harmful contact to our kids that basically destroyed mental health. And, you know, when we started to connect with these families, when I started to connect with these families, it was like those other parents could almost finish my sentence of what we were going through with Ana almost verbatim or like even leaving a suicide note that says, I love my family. Don't be sad for me. It's not you, it's me. So those commonalities were just pulled together, going, this is something that, for me, I'm into moral justice. This has to stop.
- [14:27]
A
When Lori talks about her experience being so similar to these thousands of other families that she's connected with, it just shows you the scale, the scale of harm and what these companies are consistently pushing at kids everywhere, some of which have passed, some of which haven't, but struggle every single day.
- [14:50]
B
Think about it this way. Someone like Lori who loses their daughter and has to go through the trauma of that now is part of this trial. And as part of that, the legal system is set up and the tech companies are using it this way to be so burdensome that people might give up because there's so many documents you have to fill out. There's so many rehashing of things and what heroes these families are for being willing to go through this after they've gone through the worst moment of their lives. And it just goes to show their inherent strength even more. Because again, the system is sort of designed to be exhausting. And also it just shows how amazing these lawyers are who are helping guide these families through it, like, just in terms of. Of sheer strength to go through this process. We owe so much to these families because of what's going to come out of this. It's going to reshape our children's digital lives. And their bravery is the reason why we're going to arrive at that point.
- [15:58]
A
We talk about these companies harming children, but it's actually the people at the companies. And what's incredibly important about this trial is the CEOs have to testify in person despite all of their work and their attorneys work trying to get them out, out of this. They're gonna have to appear and sit in front of parents and families and these families are fully ready for this. Let me play a clip from Lori.
- [16:25]
D
You know, what do you want your legacy to be, Mark Zuckerberg? You know, every other business in this country has a social license to operate
- [16:32]
B
and you have zero.
- [16:34]
D
Money can't buy everything. I know it's hard, but money, I have to truly believe in my heart justice will come. Money cannot buy his way out of this or these other companies. And if this is what it takes to even get when I talk to elected officials, is this what you want to be aligned with? Unsealed documents that prove they knew what they were doing? What do you want your legacy to be?
- [16:56]
B
When Mark Zuckerberg stood up in that Senate Judiciary hearing and turned around and apologized. I'm doing that in quotes to the parents, which was obviously woefully, you know, fake.
- [17:12]
E
There's families of victims here today. Have you apologized to the victims? Would you like to do so now? Well, they're here. You're on national television. Would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your product? Show them the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people
- [17:33]
D
as
- [17:34]
C
far as everything that you've all been through terrible.
- [17:37]
B
And no one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered. Now they will sit across from him and watch him have to testify in the court of law above about what his actions and what his negligence has done. I honestly think the tech CEOs thinking about that Senate Judiciary hearing. I think they think of these families as like one off cases. Like, oh, that really bad thing happened to that one family. And they don't. And they're, it's like they refuse to acknowledge what role it's played in harming thousands and thousands of families. And so this is, this is now about the individual and it's about everyone together.
- [18:22]
A
You can't call thousands of families edge cases when that's representative of a much Larger number. So before we move on to talk about this first case with kgm, I just want to say how grateful I am to Lori and all of the other parents who have taken this on and for having the strength to stand up to these companies. Okay, so moving on to January 27th. What is happening on that day is a trial is beginning. The first case to be tried is about a, now an adult young woman. But we're talking about her experiences when she was a minor and they, we are referring to her as KGM in order to, to keep her anonymity obviously throughout our coverage. When we say KGM this, KGM that, that's how the attorneys are going to refer to her, just for her anonymity and kgm. What we know publicly is that KGM suffered from all of the things we talked about before. Anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, trouble sleeping, all these things that are common amongst all of these victims. But we're going to learn a lot more about KGM's experience because the defendants, the social media companies are going to want to point to anything other than their own actions as a reason that she struggled with these things. I've been sitting in these hearings listening to both sides, the attorneys on both sides kind of discuss and decide, argue about what they can and can't say at trial. Just this trial prep phase. And what I've observed about the social media companies attorneys is that their defense is seeming to be to I, I don't have another word but attack this young girl to blame anything to do with her, her decisions, her friends, her parents, her teachers, her coaches, her genetics, her atmosphere, how she grew up, her parents maybe argued like anything that pushes the blame off of themselves. And so it just as I'm sitting there I cringe because it feels like these high powered, high paid attorneys are just attacking a little girl that's so ugly.
- [20:34]
B
And also if you think about what other products are on the market where they've been tested for child safety or whatever and then there's like a cutout for. But if, if you have any of these other factors or like your parents argued once or you had a bad grade in fourth grade, like you shouldn't use the product. Like I guess it just feels so unrelated to what's at stake which is that they design something addictive and horrible. And so it's what we talked about before. They're trying to make these families seem like one offs by saying, well there were all these factors involved. But I don't know, logically that just doesn't even make sense to me because then you can't put a product out. If normal people who have multifaceted lives have such a bad reaction to it, like how would you prevent that? It just again goes to show like the heart of the tech companies in this moment, like where their priorities are and what they're trying to do here. It's really gross. Do you think? I'm just curious because you've been sitting in there listening, like don't you feel that the, that will also be the reaction of the public and the jury during the like, do you think they're gonna keep that same tactic going in the room? Because I feel like that would be so off putting.
- [21:49]
A
I hope they do because gonna. Everyone will be able to see them for who they really are. And what they're trying to do is bring down this young girl. I, that seems for, for me to be their strategy at this point. That's what I expect to see and that is not going to go over well with the jury. But I don't know what else. I mean they're grasping at straws because in the end their clients, the social media companies did wire these clients products for addiction. So they're just grasping at straws is what it feels like. And taking down a family in the process.
- [22:26]
B
Gross. Don't like it.
- [22:28]
C
The number one approach for these companies is bad kid, bad parent. And they'll say that no matter the circumstances. Right. We work with families who, who had software, who had rules, who had no device, who had, you know, devices but didn't know, who had very, you know, people who were tech savvy and had their house locked down like Fort Kno Box. I mean it's, you have every situation and, and the outcome is the same because these, these companies are, are distributing these products for free. They're giving them out to your kids. They're, I mean you see in their documents that are public, they're making sure that kids can access no matter what a parent says. And, and the key point there also that we talked about a moment ago, addiction. So parents like, well, not my kid. My kid follows the rules. My kid does well in school and so did most of the kids that I meet. And their parents, they also follow the rules that they also did well in school. My point to all of that is what you will see in this trial is that you will see that this is a kid just like everyone else's kids, just like our kids. And these companies, you, you, and you've seen it already. Nikki, I saw one of your things recently where you walked out, and we're like, this is terrible. They're attacking this child. And, and. And they're gonna basically wanna say, well, let's pick apart every little thing, every bad thing that's ever happened to you. I want to pick that apart publicly, as publicly as possible. I want to pick that apart to show bad kid, bad parent. And. And again, what we need to remember is, like, she is just like our kids.
- [23:55]
A
This isn't about bad parents. This isn't. This is about bad companies and bad people at these companies doing bad things. And that is going to be so hard. I mean, I'm going to be in that courtroom. KGM is going to be in that courtroom. Her parents are going to be in that courtroom while these attorneys pick them apart, break them down, go through the worst experiences of their whole life to try to put the blame back on them. And that is why, again, like, these families are so brave for being willing to do this in order to protect millions of other children.
- [24:29]
B
And our job is to hold them up and stand with them as they go through it.
- [24:34]
C
None of the families we work with are happy to be here. None of them enjoy it. None of them. And keep in mind, going into this, you know, that we weren't supposed to be able to even get into the courthouse doors. And I think people forget that. They forget that this litigation's been ongoing for four years. These companies deny everything. They have massive resources and political influence. And you have these families that are coming forward and these young women, they do not want to be here. They're being called to relive the worst years of their life, the most traumatic years of their life, the years that they want to forget. All of them have chosen to do it because they don't want what happened to them to happen to other kids.
- [25:12]
A
Let's transition to talk about what the courtroom is going to look like. So we have the judge, right? So Judge Carolyn Kuhl is a judge on the Superior Court of California for the county of la. Her husband is also a judge on the LA County Superior Court. I have been observing her, and I think she is so smart and I really like her. And she's okay with slapping their wrists, the social media company's attorney's wrists, if they're crossing a line. She's not taking any shit from anybody. And so I'm really happy with what we might see from this judge.
- [25:47]
B
I think it's critical who the judge is in a case like this. So it's awesome to hear that you find her to be very level headed and fair. And that is an important part of this.
- [25:59]
A
Right.
- [25:59]
B
Is you want to the trial to be conducted in a way where everything moves forward so that we hopefully can see the outcome that we all are imagining. I'm, I'm glad she impressed you.
- [26:12]
C
Yeah.
- [26:13]
A
I'm just glad that she's not, she's not taking shit like she. Yeah, you can see her pushing back even on the social media companies. One example is that the jurors, so we'll talk about the jurors in a moment, but the jurors will be able to use social media during the trial. And there was lots of discussion about, you know, can't the social media companies influence the jurors during the trial if they're allowed to be on those algorithms? And the judge jumped in and was like, you mean like they do with the billboards off of all the freeway, freeways around downtown L. A? You mean like those billboards promoting how safe they are? Like she. And then Meta had to get up and be like, we have billboards everywhere. They're not just in downtown la. She's like, please.
- [26:59]
B
But there are like three right by the exit, right?
- [27:01]
A
Correct. One thing that I thought was interesting is the other day Judge Cole was talking about something to do with one of the motions and she mentioned that she doesn't use social media and I thought that that was fascinating. She's in her 70s and just was not of the generation to be on there. And what do you think of that? Do you think there's any benefit or con to her not being on social media?
- [27:26]
B
I actually think it's a benefit because I think you and I have this conversation a lot about talking to other parents still and they'll make the case of like, but I like it big Instagram because it connects me to other people. I get to see content I really like and, and that's genuine. You know what I mean? A lot of people find benefit with these products and it's not all bad in their minds.
- [27:53]
A
Right.
- [27:53]
B
And I'll say that even for myself, something else that's true, at least from our research and working with other partners in this space, is that what kids are getting served is different than adults. So if you're like a 40 year old woman shopping on Instagram, you're not seeing the dark side necessarily of the platform. Maybe you feel the addictive effects, but you're not understanding that kids are having a different and sort of wildly inappropriate experience there. And so I just think not having any relationship with it or Experience with it will actually, in my mind, make the arguments even that much clearer because it'll almost be described as this, like, third party object. And if you hear just descriptions of it without having any knowledge or tinge of what the experience is like, I think that it might get even a more sort of fair shake. I don't know. That's just my instinctual answer.
- [28:51]
C
You know, the beauty of judges and really good judges like, like, and including Judge Kuhl and the other judges in these cases is that she doesn't have to have used social media.
- [29:01]
D
Right.
- [29:02]
C
To be able to understand the legal issues and the factual issues, which is what we need. We have gotten these incredible judges, these very smart and thoughtful judges who have been careful through the entire process. And as long as that stays true, which I absolutely believe it will, it's. I don't think it's of any consequence that she hasn't used social media.
- [29:24]
A
So now let's talk about the jury. And don't you wish you were a juror on this trial?
- [29:30]
B
I got a jury summons for LA February 2nd and I almost died. I was like, wait, am I going to get to be on this jury? Not only would I picked off so fast, but also it was actually for the city of Burbank, so it's not okay. But there was a moment like, I think all of us wish we could be, and there's so many reasons that we can't be. But this is reminiscent of one of those landmark cases where the jurors are likely going to be studied eventually, over time, of who they were as people and how they came to their decision and all of that. So while I envy them in some ways, I, I'm sure it will also be a hard position to be in just because of everything we've outlined, like what's at stake here. And I really hope the companies also don't go after them personally and all the stuff that can happen sometimes when things go south.
- [30:24]
A
But yeah, so the judge recently ruled that this will be an anonymous jury. So this, the judge admitted, you know, this is going to be a public trial with a lot of media scrutiny, a lot of media attention. And so the jurors are going to be kept anonymous and be able to go back to the privacy of their personal lives on trial days. And then after the trial's done, though, they can speak out about their involvement in the trial. So that'll be interesting to hear from them. Now we get to the point about can these jurors even use social media during the trial? And I want to play Laura's clip here because I think it's a good starting point.
- [31:08]
C
You know, that's a wildly interesting issue.
- [31:10]
D
Right.
- [31:10]
C
Because I can't think of an instance where we've had a situation where a jury is going to, to be getting communications from a party no matter what we do. If they have social media, which almost everyone does, it's so bizarre that you have companies with this level of power. It goes back to like, it's messy because these companies are in our homes. Even if we don't bring them in our homes, they get into our homes, our Internet searches, the data brokers.
- [31:33]
B
Right.
- [31:34]
C
And this is a good example of how much power they have. The fact that we actually cannot keep them out of the jurors homes. And if we try, we potentially open up more windows, like if we identify the individuals. I mean, it doesn't even matter. They could literally bury all of LA county with ads about how great they are and the way their algorithms work. We've seen this in practice. All of the positive coverage of the trial that can die on the vine. The algorithm just blocks it. And anything that is mocking the trial or saying, wow, this is such a waste of resource, like that's the stuff that's going to go through the roof.
- [32:12]
A
So there was a whole back and forth during the last one of the last hearings where judge decided like, we can't stop these jurors from going on social media during the trial, but we need to provide them with instructions. Things like if you see an ad from Instagram teen accounts, you need to disregard it. So there's going to be instructions given to the jurors, but they are still going to be able to use social media during the trial.
- [32:37]
B
Yeah, this is a really hard one because to be honest, it feels like they shouldn't be able to. But the issue is that social media is becoming utility in our lives. For instance, as a juror, you could make a case why. What if you were an influencer or like that was you did business this way or. And we all have become so reliant on these channels in order to live that I can understand why they feel like they can't take those away from them. The reason it's concerning for someone like you or I, or people who've sort of studied the manipulation of what Big Tech is doing right now in terms of borrowing legitimacy from other places and saying we're safe and saying we're all these things when we know that they're not. It just gives them like more of an opportunity to do that at a really critical moment. And so one hopes that that doesn't have an influence on the outcome. But it's a little unnerving, for sure.
- [33:38]
D
It's just.
- [33:39]
A
And it's very unique. And I. Are you telling me that the social media companies aren't going to turn that little dial and rig that algorithm so that coverage like ours doesn't go very far in coverage like analyzing the trial in a different way, you know, and for example, the posts I've been doing about the trial, since I've been posting a lot about the trial, my engagement on Instagram has decreased by at least five times. And so you're seeing this already happen, this sort of suppression.
- [34:09]
B
Suppression of what's happening. Yeah, no, we're gonna have to.
- [34:13]
D
This is.
- [34:13]
B
Again, it's David and Goliath. Right? Unlimited resources, unlimited channels to influence. So we are gonna have to do everything in our power to make sure that the truth gets out about what's happening both in the courtroom, but also the manipulation of the companies and that they're putting all their weight behind, trying to sway perception about them and what they do.
- [34:36]
D
Right.
- [34:36]
A
And I think what we can remember is that everybody knows most everybody and knows and understands that social media is not great for kids. And everybody's got kids or grandkids or cares about some kid in the world that is being affected in some way, maybe some positive ways, but mostly negative ways by these platforms. And so I really trust that we're going to have a jury of people like us and people that understand the situation and are able to kind of see it for what it is.
- [35:08]
D
You know, it's Goliath. I think it's part of Goliath's makeup. But I have to have hope in the human factor of people that are sitting in those jury seats are going to see beyond that. I think with this trial taking so long, we've even had the grace for things to come forward for the world to understand how these platforms operated. I don't care who you are, it's still. When you want to be a juror, it's still planted right there in your head.
- [35:33]
A
So the outcome of this trial, what if KGM wins? And I've talked to a couple attorneys about this, and they really leaned on the fact that just getting our day in court, just going to trial with this case, they feel like we've already won.
- [35:51]
B
That's a really important point because, God willing, we do win, and KGM does win, and that will change precedent for these companies. And what they have to do. But there also is a scenario where what comes out in the public about these companies during the trial is so damning they can't recover from it. And so I hear that having the day in court is a win in and of itself for all of us who've been advocating for so long that these companies have to reveal more. I think it is a really powerful moment.
- [36:25]
A
And already in the discovery process, there's been internal documents that have been made public and experts analyzing those documents. I mean, I went through literally 6,000 pages of documents pulling out the internal things that were being said by these, by these people at these companies. And it's damning already. And so we're, we're going to hear the, the best of, the best of it coming from the plaintiff's attorneys, the family's attorneys, regarding what they knew and when they knew it. And so this is, you're right, this is going to shine a light on their bad business practices either way, whether we win or lose.
- [36:59]
B
Yeah, I mean, and what you're referencing, right, is like them making comments about like teens being like herd animals and like trying to like loop them in early on and get them addicted early on, like all that stuff. But like the actual words, right. Like reading an email where somebody writes that is different than insane, you know, insinuating that they thought it. So I think that that stuff is going to be extremely damning and hopefully brand wise, they won't be able to recover from this in some way.
- [37:29]
C
The significance of KGM surviving summary judgment going to a jury. My hope, my hope is that just the fact that a trial is happening is going to have this lasting effect because now we know that when a member of the public is harmed, they can get into court. And so it's not. I mean, we still have to fight really hard and you still have to have resources and you still have, you know, attorneys willing and able to do it. But really by opening, as long as we can keep those doors open. Right, let's, let's put a wedge in there. Let's keep them propped open. Then at least there is a potential path for protecting people and protecting kids. So that is the. Let's start with the. We've. We've already won.
- [38:13]
A
Okay. So logistically, this trial is going to take about four to six weeks. So it'll get us into March. And then looking ahead, what is going to happen next? So I asked Previn Warren, who I mentioned earlier, about what the next steps will be once the KGM case wraps up. There will be a week or two break and then another trial will begin of a young man who we're going to call rkc. And that will continue one by one until potentially the companies just decide to settle all of the cases because they are losing consistently. That's where I hope we get to
- [38:46]
B
a question that comes up a lot when you talk about lawsuits is if people end up settling the lawsuit, then does that mean that the companies actually have to change their platform or make it safer? So this is something we're going to be following and tracking really closely as it relates to these trials is if and when the companies lose or they settle, is there something called injunctive relief, which is basically where the plaintiffs push that the defendants actually have to change something substantial in the product as a result of losing. And of course, that's something that we all want to see happen because it means then the platforms would be safer going forward. The other way to look at it though, is that if the cases are successful, maybe the companies change it anyway because they know there are going to be more and more cases brought against them if they lose. There's ways to both end up pressuring the companies in a slightly different way. But we'll keep you apprised too, of what changes the companies are forced to make coming out of this, if any.
- [39:50]
A
So those families, individual cases will continue until there's some sort of group resolution. And then beginning in late May, the first school district trial will be held in Northern California. And that is going to be a school district in rural Kentucky called Bred Hit County School District. And we're going to, we're going to be following all of this. You don't need to remember all this now. But there's also going to be in the summer the first trial from a Tennessee attorneys general against Meta that will start. So this is the beginning of a long series of trials that are all really important and mean something for parents today. Yeah.
- [40:26]
B
And hopefully you as parents also then have another talking point when you're in conversations with others about how dangerous or bad it is and you've needed proof points like, there we have a friend who's a listener who's been bringing up a lot of what we've talked about on the Heat is on with other colleagues and friends. And sometimes you get pushback, like, well, do you really know? Or like, it's been, you know, it's actually okay. And then if you can say like, actually there's a lawsuit about it now and they lost because they've been found to be addictive. It's hopefully also going to make those conversations easier to help convince people that there are really harmful platforms out there and that it's not just an opinion, but it's a proven fact now. Right. So I think following all the trials and what happens in them is so critical, not just because of the outcomes and how brave the families are, but also it will as a society help us make more of a. Create a better stance on whether or not social media is something our kids should have access to at all.
- [41:29]
D
I think as a parent, you reach for every tool and resource you can to parent your child. And it's so hard in this world to divide out the rights, the wrongs, what's, you know, either peer reviewed or research or this. But the, the content and the depth of when people say, really, I'm not sure what was happening with the meta and Facebook and my child and their emotional reaction that this is such a prime opportunity to follow this show, get it in court, get it where the messages can't be deterred and we get smoke and mirrors from, you know, big tech's PR campaign and really listen because there's so much to gain.
- [42:09]
A
Okay, so logistically, what can you expect from us? We are going to have someone in the courtroom every single day. A lot of times it'll be me because there is no audio feed or video feed that will be available. So we are going to be diligently, scribing, taking notes about what is happening in that courtroom. You will be able to access daily recaps in short form video format posted across all of scrolling to Death Beth's platforms and Sarah's as well. And then we're gonna do a little bit longer, maybe 20 minute weekly podcast episodes that will recap everything that happened that week that parents need to know. We hope that parents walk away after watching this trial coverage with an awareness shift that you already talked about. Being able to have these conversations more openly and productively with other families and with other parents, set better boundaries or safer boundaries in their own home and be able to stick to them because we have that backing, but then also inspiration to do more. And that is really what the Heat Is on is all about, is keeping that heat on. Not just hearing that something bad is happening and then making a safer choice in your home and then being like, ah, I did my job. It's about getting involved in a larger scale so that we can have millions of us pushing back on these companies and that's how we're going to make bigger changes.
- [43:30]
B
Yeah, I think there's greater awareness now that tech is influencing our lives across the board in so many ways. And that industry is so powerful and embedded in so much of our daily life, and yet with kids, the consequences of that have been enormous. And this is a monolith, powerful industry that has taken advantage of that position to harm children. And that has to stop. And as I said, coming out of these lawsuits and the trials, I think it will no longer be an opinion that they're harming kids. It will be fact. And that will empower us parents with so much more energy and oomph to go after them across the board and hopefully see like the regulation and legislation that we also ultimately need to see and maybe the industry shift to and a motivation for people to create platforms that actually are safe by design and allow for kids to lead healthier lives because they're not addicting them and, you know, making them suffer.
- [44:38]
C
The thing about it is that these companies have to, they have to win every fight in order to preserve the status quo. They have to win every single time. We don't have to win every single time. We just got to break through. The products that, that your children are being exposed to either at home, at school, or at their friends houses out in the world. The products that, that 90 plus percent of our kids are being exposed to, they're on trial. And it's not easy to get to that stage. It means that we had to survive motions to dismiss, we had to survive motions for summary judgment, we had to survive motions to throw out experts. And at each step of the way, the court said there's a there there. And, and so just as a parent, even if I knew nothing else about these cases, as a parent, I, I would say, well, I kind of want to know, I kind of want to know if I'm gonna, if I'm gonna. I don't care if it's a cell phone, a social media app, or a box of cereal, if I'm going to be giving it to my kid, I'm going to pay attention.
- [45:33]
A
So from here we are asking parents to sign up for our email list because I don't trust platforms like Meta to prioritize the, the trial coverage. And so the best way to stay updated is going to scrollingtodeath.com heat and just giving us your email address. We will send you updates on trial coverage. Also share the episodes with family and friends as they come out. Like we talked about, these are really conversation starters and we want to hear from you. Like, we want to know what you're wondering about, if you have specific questions or something you want to know that's happening in the courtroom, we want to let you know. So let us know. Next episode of the Heat is on. Big Tech on trial. We will be in the courtroom watching jury selection.
- [46:15]
B
And shortly after that, we're all waiting with anticipation because the big tech CEOs themselves will be having to appear in. In court in person, which will be huge. Are you ready for that?
- [46:28]
A
I think I'm ready. I think I'm more than ready.