The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: Beyond the Headlines (with Kaley’s lead attorney Mark Lanier)

Summary

Scrolling 2 Death — "The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: Beyond the Headlines"

Host: Nicki Petrossi
Guest: Mark Lanier, Lead Attorney for Kaylee
Date: May 18, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode takes listeners inside the landmark courtroom battle where a young woman, Kaylee, confronted Meta (Instagram) and YouTube, holding them accountable for the psychological harm she suffered through their platforms. Through firsthand accounts from reporter and host Nicki Petrossi and her conversation with Mark Lanier, Kaylee’s lead attorney, the episode peels back the headlines to reveal the chaos, strategy, emotion, and stakes behind the first major trial to challenge social media’s responsibility for child addiction. The discussion covers why this case matters, courtroom stories, legal tactics, and what the verdict means for families everywhere.

---

Courtroom Scene & Background

[01:01–04:11] Walking into the Courtroom

• Nicki describes the courthouse’s emotional gravity: grieving parents, advocates, crowded reporters, powerful company lawyers, and 12 jurors—“just regular people like us” overseen by Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
• Kaylee (referred to as "Kaylee GM" as a minor) is a young woman from Chico, California, who became addicted to multiple platforms (YouTube from age 6, Instagram at 9, plus Snapchat and TikTok later), which Lanier says stunted her development and threw her home life into turmoil.

[05:14] Kaylee’s Early Use and Settlement Details

• Four platforms were originally defendants; Snapchat and TikTok settled on the “courthouse steps” just before trial, leaving Meta and YouTube to stand trial.
• Lanier says these settlements provided Kaylee with security and allowed the case to focus for clarity and jury comprehension under strict time limits.

---

Behind the Scenes: Chaotic Days and Emotional Moments

[14:32–19:46] Surreal Trial Events

• The trial was riddled with turbulence: sick jurors, skipped days, a defense attorney’s head injury (“looked like a golf ball”), flooding that led to courtroom changes, and even Mark Lanier himself losing his voice.
• “It was a case of one chaos to another.” — Mark Lanier [15:33]
• Nicki recalls the humor injected into stressful moments, such as Lanier joking to the judge, “I’m sorry, judge, I’m on steroids,” after being argumentative while on medication for his voice [18:07].
• Lanier adds levity to tense proceedings, keeping the mood from becoming overwhelming.

[19:48–21:03] Judge Carolyn Kuhl’s Role

• Lanier expresses deep respect for Judge Kuhl, calling her “as good a judge as you’re ever going to find” for handling the intense legal and emotional challenges.

---

Legal Tactics & The "Sweet Spot" for Justice

[08:51–12:19] The Approach: Not a "Home Run" but a Message

• Unlike billion-dollar verdicts designed to shock companies (as Lanier previously did with Johnson & Johnson’s talc case), here the focus was on a verdict “large enough so Wall Street pays attention, but not so large an appellate court will see it as runaway and overturn it.”
• Lanier took the case, he says, for both personal (his daughter Rachel was co-lead) and moral (“this is a righteous case—it’s a holy war in a sense”) reasons.

---

The Jury's Decision — and Defense Response

[23:26–27:11] Jury Findings

• The jury found Meta and YouTube negligent, failed to warn, and acted with malice.
• They ruled their design “was a significant contributing factor” to Kaylee’s damages—totaling $6 million: $3 million in damages, $3 million in punitive damages.

[27:27–30:16] Defense Missteps and Key Moments

• Lanier believes the platforms’ best legal move would have been to settle: “I find their actions indefensible.”
• The defense spent 80% of their case attacking Kaylee’s background, arguing she would have been troubled independent of social media—a tactic Lanier dismisses as akin to “saying someone already had a headache so it’s fine to hit them with a brick.” [23:26]

---

Notable & Memorable Quotes

From the Host and Lanier

• “There were moments of chaos... I’ve never had a defense lawyer conk out and bang his head. Flooding, asbestos issues, losing my voice... one chaos after another.” — Mark Lanier [15:04–15:36]
• “If there’s no cause, there’s no case. That’s almost reminiscent of the old OJ case, ‘If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.’” — Mark Lanier [33:05]
• “The greatest of these is love.” — Mark Lanier, quoting scripture on fighting for children [52:50]

From Social Media Execs and Defense

• “That sounds like problematic use.” — Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, in response to hearing Kaylee spent 16 hours on Instagram in a day [34:16]
  • Lanier’s reaction: “That would qualify for one of the understatements of the century.”
• "It's not really social media addiction if it's not really social media and it's not an addiction." — Google/YouTube's Louis Lee [36:41]
  • Lanier: “Nice try. But it is social media, and they are addicted.”
• “If you don’t like it, turn it off. The only tool that works is the one you use.” — Louis Lee, YouTube [39:05]
  • Lanier: “That’s deceptive... it’s like saying the alcoholic would never get drunk if he didn’t drink. But you’re talking about an addict.”

---

Key Segments & Timestamps

• Kaylee’s Story and Case Setup: [04:11–06:36]
• Trial Chaos & Anecdotes: [14:32–19:46]
• Settlements and Legal Tactics: [05:23–12:19]
• Jury’s Verdict Explained: [23:26–27:11]
• Defense Strategies Debunked: [27:11–30:16], [30:43–37:37]
• Tech Execs’ Testimony and Cross-exam: [33:27–39:10]
• The "Tap, tap, tap" Cross-ex [40:06–41:48]
• Data Deletion Back-and-Forth: [42:24–44:59]
• What the Verdict Means — Looking Ahead: [45:08–47:48]
• Advice for Parents: [49:02–52:01]
• Final Reflections & The Message: [53:10–54:22]

---

The Big Picture & Impact

Looking Forward:

• Lanier hopes the verdict strips social platforms of their “get out of jail free” card (Section 230 immunity) and forces genuine accountability for child safety.
  • “I hope it is a major step forward in making better corporate citizens of social media...they can’t blindly make profit off abusing children.” [45:59]
• Meta and YouTube, Lanier notes, immediately began a “full spin PR campaign,” calling it “lawyer-manufactured litigation,” but with thousands of similar cases waiting, this is only the beginning. [48:00]

For Parents:

• “If a child asks for Instagram, I would say no. Period.”
• His key advice: Talk to your kids. Build relationships so you’re ready for the hard conversations. Protect them by 'locking the door' to outsiders—both physically and digitally. [49:12–52:01]

Lasting Message:

• “There is evil in this world... but truth and love can win when people are willing to stand up for what is right. That’s what I would like this case to be remembered for.” — Mark Lanier [53:18]

---

Lighthearted & Human Moments

• Lanier sending a picture of “endless chips” to the YouTube lawyer after their “Mexican restaurant chips” analogy became a running joke [38:18].
• “Tap, tap, tap”—recurring courtroom banter about how easy it is (supposedly) to change YouTube settings, which became an inside joke among the trial team and podcast hosts [40:06–41:48].
• Lanier’s direct, sometimes pithy courtroom humor (e.g., “I might be pregnant, too,” to the judge [18:24]).

---

Summary for New Listeners

This episode lifts the veil on a historic legal fight between a regular family and tech giants Meta and YouTube, highlighting the court’s recognition of social platforms’ role in adolescent harm. It delivers not only the stakes of the lawsuit and the struggle for justice, but also judges, lawyers, and survivors as real people—vulnerable, tireless, and, above all, loving. The story ends with a call for parental engagement, corporate responsibility, and hope that truth and love—backed by the law—can ultimately protect young people from tech’s most harmful designs.

Transcript

[A]

There are moments in life when you know you're witnessing something huge, something life changing.

[B]

And this was definitely one of those moments.

[A]

We sat inside a courtroom and watched a young woman take on two of the most powerful companies in the world.

[B]

What we saw wasn't just a trial. It was a window into how these platforms were built.

[A]

So today we're bringing you inside that

[B]

courtroom because this case wasn't just about one young woman.

[A]

It was about design and power and what happens when these technologies collide with kids.

[B]

And at the center of it all was Mark Lanier, lead trial attorney in the case against Meta and YouTube.

[A]

We asked him what really happened beyond the headlines. I'm Nikki.

[B]

And I'm Sarah. This is the Heat is Big Tech on Trial, a square scrolling to death production in partnership with Heat Initiative.

[A]

I wanted to start with Mark, how I feel like we went through something really big together. And from January 27th to March 25th, we were in that courthouse day after day. And I feel like, to understand this case and what I've been trying to do for people that weren't able to be there is to give them a visual and have them really feel what it was like. And so we would walk up those marble steps, weave through those cameras and reporters. They would be chasing you down for a sound bite. And then off to the left, we had parents and advocates, and the parents were there because this was personal for them. They had lost something or someone. And we had advocates like Sarah supporting them, who's been in this fight for years. And then inside the courtroom, we had you and your beautiful daughters Rachel and Sarah beside you and your team. Across the aisle, we had rows of attorneys for Meta and YouTube. And then we had the jury, just 12 regular people like me and like us, watching very closely and paying very close attention. And then all of this was presided over by Judge Carolyn Kuhl. And then you had audience members, so we had rows filled with grieving parents. And then we had media. And that's where I got to be, typing nonstop and trying to capture every moment. And by the end, mark, I had 589 pages of notes. Wow, there's a lot in there. And most of it, you know, didn't make the headlines. And there was a lot of small things that happened that I'll never forget. And so I wanted to go through some of that today and ask for you to kind of respond to some things that I heard you say, or YouTuber Meta's attorneys say and ask for you to kind of expand a bit for the audience. And tell us what was happening behind the scenes.

[C]

Nikki, that sounds fantastic. I've got to tell you, you were the best reporter that was covering the event. And I have quite a large family. You're right. Two of my daughters were there with me, but we have two other daughters and a son. All of them are married. We have 12 grandkids. We have, my mother is still alive. I have two sisters in all of their family. Plus I have this vibrant community life through my church. And everybody was asking me, you know, who can tell us what's happening. We want day to day updates. We want. And all I would say is go to scrolling to death. Nikki, she's done the best job. And so all of them want, all of them have told me if you ever talk to her, you better say thank you very much because we have never been so clearly kept up to date with one of your cases. And I said, I will be sure

[A]

to tell her thank you, Mark. That's so good to hear. And I didn't realize no one else would be doing that. It was so incredibly interesting what was happening day to day in that courtroom and outside the courtroom that I feel like people deserve to know that. And I was really grateful to be able to do that for everyone back home. So thank you. That means a lot. So let's get listeners up to speed. Just briefly, Mark, who is Kaylee, Kaylee

[C]

GM as we would call her by her initials to protect her anonymity when she was a minor and so much of this was happening to her is a young lady. She's now 20. She lives in Chico, California. She started on YouTube when she was six years old. She started on Instagram when she was nine years old. She became addicted to those platforms and Snapchat and TikTok later, she spent an incredible amount of time on those in ways that stunted her development mentally, socially, emotionally. They caused a great bit of turmoil in her home. They exacerbated other problems that she had in her life. And it was an addiction that really changed the trajectory of, of a wonderful young lady. And we, we were honored to get to represent her in trying to chase down the culprits, the bad guys behind this addiction.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And there were four defendants to start. And then we had Snapchat and TikTok settle within a week to days before the trial started.

[C]

In legal terminology, we say Snapchat and TikTok settled on the courthouse steps. That's our expression for right on the eve of trial. They didn't want to go inside the courtroom. So they resolved outside, just right there on the steps, though. They got real close. And that is our parlance for what happened. I think they were smart to get out. I think that it was nice for Kaylee because it gave some insurance that we knew, regardless, she was going to have some measure of recovery and that would help her in her life. And so it was also an efficient way for me to try to figure out how to try the case. The judge had us on a real strict timetable, and it was going to be, I think, an impossible challenge for me to try it against all four defendants with the limited time. So by carving out two of them and resolving those cases, and it was a real godsend, it enabled us to sculpt the trial down to something that we were able to do within the time allotted by the judge.

[A]

And having observed what it was like to have only 40 hours for two defendants, it would have been super confusing, to be honest, to follow the storylines of what our experience looked like for four different defendants and four different companies. Four different experiences she was having on all those platforms, different timelines and. And thinking about the jury. That would have been really overwhelming with

[C]

that amount of time. It would have been. If I'd had more time, I could have done it. That wouldn't have been an issue. There are ways to do it, but you've got to then put on the entire case against those defendants as well. So you have to explain what their features were, how their filters worked, what they did in their time period in her life. And that is something that takes more time. We were already cutting witnesses right and left because we didn't have enough time to put them on. I didn't put on the president of YouTube. I didn't put on certain other key witnesses that I could have because I just didn't have time. And so calling out those two defendants certainly made it an easier case. And for me to put on and for the jury to understand.

[A]

Is there anything about Kaylee's experience on Snapchat or TikTok that you were really looking forward to people knowing about?

[C]

Yeah, I wanted people to know that TikTok particularly has a different version in China than they do in the us. They're much more protective of the minds of the Chinese children than they are those in the U.S. and that. That would have been very galling and upsetting to the jury. I think Snapchat also, it's just a pretend illusion world that you can have a social media app where whatever you display disappears from the planet and you don't think that's going to be abused by people in ways that affect teenagers. Now we couldn't get into content, but the jury's certainly going to recognize the room for exploitation from that content, even if you don't get into it.

[B]

So Mark, you've won and tried so many cases totaling billions of dollars in damages. How was this case different and why did you choose it?

[C]

This case was different in a number of ways. Often when I go in to try a case, I want to hit what we would call a home run. I want an eye popping verdict that causes Wall street to recoil and causes in house lawyers to lose their jobs and causes companies to live and respond differently. In this case, I could not do that. I did not need that, nor did I want that. And I'll tell you why. This is a case that I knew would go up on appeal. And appellate courts, if they see that eye popping verdict, they immediately know, well, we've got to reduce it somehow because it's a runaway jury, it's an angry jury. There must have been some problem somewhere. So what is the easy way to reverse this case and fix the runaway jury? I don't want an appellate court in this case thinking that oh, this was an angry runaway jury. We must find a reason to send this case back for a retrial. I don't want them writing on section 230. So we tried assiduously, hard to keep any error out of the case and we try not to have an eye popping verdict. But the other side of the coin is you need a verdict that's large enough to where Wall street does pay attention, to where the math does work out and the company realizes it's economically viable for lawyers to try the case because they can recover their expenses and make some money and get money to the client. So there's a real sweet spot of, of how much is enough but not too much. And, and that, that was some of the challenge in this case that held it apart differently than others. The case itself. I came to try the case in part because my daughter Rachel was one of the co leads in California and Rachel said that there was some debate over which case camp should be trying the case and that both camps had said they would back down if I would agree to try it. And so I love an opportunity to work with my kids. And I thought this is a righteous case, this one is worth investing your time and energy in. And so that's why I got into the case. It was, it was, it was a holy war in a sense.

[A]

So interesting to have to ride that middle ground. And you said, you know, in previous trials your, your aim would be to get those, those attorneys to lose their jobs because you beat them so bad. Right. And I, I found it really interesting when I went to a pre trial hearing for the next big trial, the school district case in California federal court. And I walk in and Paul Schmidt is right there, Meta's lead attorney again. And I'm like, didn't he just lose? Why is he here?

[C]

Yeah, yeah. Didn't make him lose his job. I think they were, they were glad he, he didn't get the eye popper. We had a case one time, it was the Johnson and Johnson baby powder case that caused Johnson and Johnson to take asbestos laden talc out of all of their baby powder worldwide. Profound impact in the case. And the jury awarded me for 22 women in St. Louis awarded me 4.69 billion with a B dollars. So we're assessing this case and we're trying to figure out how we're going to keep it on appeal. And I told our team we need to argue that the appellate court is allowed to cut it back. They should cut it back to $1 billion because if the intermediate court of appeals cuts it to a billion, then maybe the Supreme Court will leave it alone. But 4.69 billion, there's just no way. So I told our appellate team, I said, you go in there and you argue in a way that the appellate court cuts it back to $1 billion. So they tried. Oh, they tried. But the appellate court wouldn't do that. The appellate court just cut it back to 2.1 billion. I was like, oh no, man, we're in trouble. We couldn't even get the appellate court to bring it down as far as we wanted. And so it went up to the Supreme Court and then to the US Supreme Court and it was upheld. So we kept, after the interest was assessed, they owed $2.6 billion. Now we tried to keep it to a billion. The lawyers within Johnson and Johnson, they lost their job. At least one of them did, it seems. And yet their appellate lawyer got appellate lawyer of the year because he was able to reduce it from 4.6 to 2, even though we're trying to get it to 1. And he got honored as appellate lawyer of the for such a great reduction. And I'm thinking, ah, that's not. That backfired.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Oh my God, that's so funny,

[A]

Mark. I noticed a lot of like chaos during the trial. I don't know if that's normal because this was my first one I've covered so closely. We had a lot of sick jurors. We had days we had to leave or skip entirely. We had the lead meta attorney, you know, had that major crazy head injury that looked like a golf ball on his head for weeks. We had flooding in the courthouse at one point. So was, is this normal? Just like kind of what happens, anything can happen sort of feel, or was that different to you?

[C]

This, this had its more than its fair share. Okay, it had more than its fair share. I've never had a defense lawyer conk out and bang the head. You know, we had the, the asbestos issue with the courtroom after the ceiling fell in from the leak. So we had to move courtrooms for that, move courthouses. We did have the juror issues. We lost some juror. A juror. Heavens. I lost my voice one day.

[A]

Oh my God.

[C]

I remember that.

[A]

When up to the microphone and started to talk and there was no voice, the entire room went o.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, I did too. So it was interesting. I had awakened that morning, I had been losing my voice the day before. And so I awakened that morning at about 2:30am to start. I'm an early riser and. And I realized I have no voice. And I didn't know what to do. I was trying to figure out what to do. I, I have a friend who is a pediatric ent, so he's an ear, nose, throat doctor for children. And he and his family were staying at our house in Boca for spring break at the time. And so I thought, well, he's staying at my house, I don't mind calling him. And Boca's three hours different time zone, right? So I called him And I said, Dr. John, because I could only talk like this, real low register everywhere else. My voice is gone. And even still, I said, and he knew what I was doing. I said, I just, my voice is, what do I do? And he said, well, you need steroids. And he said a steroid shot would work immediately. He says, your vocal cords are inflamed. A steroid shot would work almost immediately. Oral steroids won't kick in for an hour or two. The problem is you're not going to find a doctor that you can just go to and get a steroid shot in LA at 3:15 in the morning, you. And he said, if you can find a 24 hour pharmacy, maybe we can get you steroids. I said, well, I can't do that, but my wife will go pick up the prescription at 9 and the other side is starting with the witness, so maybe she can get me the steroids. And by the time the witness is mine, I'll be able to have enough of a voice to be able to do the cross. And Becky wasn't able to get the prescription and get there till about 10:30. But, yeah, I know by. By. By noon, I was. I was in. In good enough form to make it through the cross, and. But it was, it was. It was a case of. Of one chaos to another.

[A]

I remember Juan running in with that little envelope with the. With the medicine in it, and we were like, get it down, get it down.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I. I took them. Yeah, yeah, double dosed.

[A]

It worked. It worked.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it brought. Brought some humor, because a little later, I don't know if you were in there when the judge said that one of my questions was, she sustained an objection that it was argumentative. And I said, I'm sorry, judge, I'm on steroids.

[B]

Yeah,

[C]

I was roid rage. I was being argumentative.

[A]

You kept it light. You kept us all, like, giggling. And there was some. There was some fun moments in there, for sure.

[C]

Good. Well, there, there. You know, anytime people are enduring a trial for that length, you need to do what you can to not just make it. Not just make it informative and teaching, but if. If you can make it engaging, then people more readily listen, they more readily learn, and they more readily remember. And. And it also is just part of who I am. And so I'm. I'm trying to be as authentic as I can. I did make a mistake one time. I had to apologize to the judge when we were doing jury selection. And it was one of those sidebar moments, so the audience doesn't hear what's going on. But there was a woman who was trying to get out of serving on the jury, and she said to the judge, she said, you know, I'm. I'm. I'm pregnant. And the judge said, well, is there any reason that that would keep. Well, I have to go to the bathroom probably every hour, right. And I. I mumbled under my breath to the judge. I said, I might be pregnant, too. And the judge started. Looked at me and started laughing. I said, I apologize, Judge. I should not have said anything. And she said, oh, no, that's okay. I like a good joke. But you're not pregnant. She looked at me and said, but you're not pregnant. Okay, got it.

[A]

Got it, Judge. Thank you.

[C]

She was a great judge, man. That net she had. You talk about a challenge. I mean, I think I had a challenge trying the case. I think my team had a challenge getting it ready for trial. But the greatest challenge in that entire process was what Judge Kuhl had to do. She had to navigate so many legal issues. She had lawyers that were throwing up legal issues all night long. She doesn't have the huge staffs that we have. She's trying to make judgment calls that are going to last her own or be criticized under a timeless microscope. And she's having to make them almost critically, minute by minute. And she's having to put up with a bunch of lawyers that are ego driven, that are fighting for their careers, fighting for their clients, and she's trying to maintain order with the press. She knows all eyes are scrutinizing what she's doing. She had the toughest job of everybody, and she handled it with not just grace, but she was good. And that's my first time and maybe last time to be in front of her. But I'm telling you, as someone who's tried cases all over the country, she's as good a judge as you're ever going to find.

[A]

I thought she was very fair and on to both sides. And, you know, there was times where she really had to put her foot down. Like the, the Meta glasses with Mark Zuckerberg team in the courtroom with those recording glasses on. She was really upset about that, wasn't afraid to let us know. Oh, there we go. They look a little different from those, Mark. But.

[C]

I think this is a seminal court case for the first half of the 21st century in American jurisprudence. I'll probably write a book on it because it's worthy of one from the inside perspective. And so anyway, it's, it's, it's an important, it's an important trial. I'm glad you were a part and, and I'm really appreciative for all y' all did.

[A]

And if you need access to my 589 pages of notes for that, which includes some, you know, Rachel rolled her eyes, Mark threw his head back and disgust. There's a lot of that, too.

[C]

But one of the questions I want to ask everybody is when did you realize that we were going to win? You know, when, when did you sort of start getting the feel of, we've, we've got this. And, you know, it was a different moment for me for Meta than it was for Google and YouTube. But I'll be, I'll be interested to hear your answer to that, Nikki.

[A]

I think about that because I really didn't let myself go There too much because I was so nervous about it. And when it was happening in the moment, it was so cool, Mark, because I was, I had the computer with the live stream document and so I'm marking yes, yes, yes. And Sarah and a bunch of parents are outside on the steps watching my yeses come through. And that's that big photo moment you see of them all crying and, and screaming about it. And so it was just such a special moment. And yeah, I would love to talk more about, about when I think I knew because it, it, it just seemed so impossible that they were going to win at some point. At some point it was like, this is crazy that what they're trying to do, it's not working. And so I guess we, to fast forward for people, you know, we won, Kaylee won. And can you just describe what the jury actually decided?

[C]

The jury decided that Meta and YouTube were both negligent and negligence is a term of art in the law. What it means is take someone who's just reasonably prudent, who just is normally responsible and did they fail to do what a normally responsible or a reasonably prudent company would do? And the jury decided that they did. Did they fail to warn the way they should have reasonably warned? The jury decided that they did. And then were they actually malicious in the way they did this? I mean, was this an accident or was this intentional? And done eyes open. And the jury decided it was malicious and done eyes open. And so with that, that's one entire set of questions of are they responsible? Then the second set of questions that are embedded in all of this is did that cause damage to Kaylee? And of course the, the company's argument was no. They spent 80% of the trial trying to say Kaylee's life would be a mess anyway because of her home situation, because her mom or dad or sister, her learning disability, her teachers, the bullies at school, you know, her own shortcomings. She was going to be a mess regardless. When that part of the case was about to explode with the cross examinations of the defense. The fellow who's kind of Paul Schmidt's boss, I think Mike Ambrosio is another lawyer for them. He and I found ourselves in the men's room at the same time. And Mike's a nice guy, I get along well with him. And he said to me, he said, hey, my dad was a professional poker player and nothing personal, but he taught me all the time growing up, you just got to play the cards you're dealt. And that's all I can say to you, you know, and that implication to me was, you know, you were handed this case and now you're about to have to play it and you're going to lose. And, and that's the way it is. And of course, being a person of devout faith, internally my brain is saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll play the cards that were dealt, but I know who deals the cards, so I'm okay with that. But, you know, their defense was she was going to be a mess anyway. And that was 80% of their case. I reply to that, in a sense, is if you meet someone with a headache, it doesn't give you the right to bang them over the head with a brick and say, don't blame me, you had a headache anyway, you have to pay for your damage. And so we acknowledged to the jury that she had a difficult life and what they did exacerbated it. So the jury had to find was the negligence, the poor actions, the malice, was it a significant contributing factor to her damage? And the jury found that it was. And then the jury had to put evaluation on that damage, and the jury put $3 million on the damage, and they had to put an evaluation of what an appropriate punishment would be for just the damage to Kaylee. And they put the 3 million down again there. So it was a total of 6 million. And that was the findings of the jury.

[A]

Interesting, the play the cards you've dealt comment, because that's. They were dealt a bad case, in my opinion. There was no way they were going to be able to win because they were just wrong. Do you agree or do you feel like they went wrong somewhere? Meta and YouTube.

[C]

I don't think I would have defended them. I think I would have settled. I think I would have found a way to settle. But because I do think that their actions are wrong, I, I don't see how short of sleight of hand, I don't see how. I find their actions indefensible now. Yeah, the idea of attacking our plaintiff, that, that might have worked. That was probably their best effort. We had mock tried the case. We knew that was our weakness, our damage spot where we'd most likely take on water and could lose the case. I'm sure they mock tried the case as well and knew that also they didn't blindly choose to go after with 80% of their time and energy, the plaintiff, but they did a poor job at that. I didn't think their psychiatrist was a good witness. The woman from the office next to Petsmart or Petco. Dr. Dr. Christian.

[A]

That was. Mark, that was the most, that was the most incredible section when she, we were cross examining her. Oh my God. That'll be a good chapter in your book, Mark.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, the, the next witness that they were going to put on was another psychiatrist and he had been in the courtroom for two days and he'd been watching, he watched some of our psychiatrist, Cara Baggott, and he watched all of Sonya Krishna until he got to the lunch break and I'd started the cross and he was supposed to go on next. He was the next witness and he got up and walked out of the courtroom, stomped out of the courtroom as soon as the lunch break happened. And Louise Lee, the lawyer for YouTube Google, jumped out of his seat and instead of his normal collegial self during the start of the lunchtime where he's joking about what we're eating, he ran after the witness and we finished with Dr. Krishna at the end of the day. And about 8 o' clock that night, we got word from Luis Lee that that witness would not wind up taking the stand and that they were not going to call him. And we're absolutely convinced he, he ran, he said, I'm not doing this. And, and the interesting part is I would have paid for him to stay in there because as bad as it had been for Krishna, it was going to be even worse for this fellow. The stuff I had on this guy was, oh, I wanted it, I wanted it.

[A]

I mean, I would have been the one to punch.

[C]

Oh, you have no clue how much I wanted that guy to testify.

[A]

So we're just going to go into a little section where we'll read quotes that I had written down from my notes. And then I would just, anything you can, you want to respond to or, or you can pass, that's fine too. But we'd just love to know what you'd want to share in response to some of these quotes.

[B]

Here's the first one. The case is about what is the cause of Kaylee's psychological distress? The implication is that it was all Instagram and not the other factors.

[C]

Well, that's what he wanted the case to be about. The problem is that's not the entirety of the case. If that was the entirety of the case, then he should have admitted to everything else. What is the. It's a typical ploy for anybody in the sales business to try to focus the attention of the sellee, the buyer, on, on where that attention is best spent. And so I, I go back to the real case was about ABC addicting brains of children. In this case, Caylee. And Kaylee's part of the story, and that's part of the story. That's the c. If you don't have addiction, it doesn't matter. If it didn't affect her brain, it doesn't matter. So. So Paul is real good at telling part of the case, but his effort to repaint it did not work.

[B]

Here's the next one. Social media. Most benefits young people with chaotic home lives and those who feel marginalized.

[C]

Well, I don't know what he'd been drinking before. He said that the. The documents, Exhibit 5 said. Said the exact opposite. The missed study said the exact opposite. So he just needed to learn the documents a little bit better because that sounds like a nice AI generated line, but it's not consistent with the documents.

[B]

Okay, and here's the last one from the closing arguments, and then we have a few from Adam Mosseri. So from the closing arguments, though, if there's no cause, then we have no case. If you took Instagram away, her life would not be meaningfully different.

[C]

Yeah, that's the idea that she already had a headache before we hit her in the head with a brick. So don't blame us. Her head was hurting anyway. And if that, you know, it was. It was cutely written. I mean, you catch the alliteration.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

If there's no cause, there's no case. That's almost reminiscent of the old OJ Case. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. So he had. It was written very cutely, but it's something that's. That's. We were able to beat. I mean, it doesn't. Just because they have a headache, you can't hit them in the head with a brick and say, don't blame me.

[B]

Okay. And then two from Adam Mosseri. The first one, I'm sure I've said that I've been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don't think that's the same thing as clinical addiction.

[C]

That belongs on Dancing with the Stars. That. That's an effort to dance away from the fact. He has said repeatedly in olden days that they were addicted.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

They were addictive.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And he used the word addiction. And they. They know that that's not a good word now. And so they. They try to dance away from it, and. Yeah. You just can't. He's not that good a dancer.

[B]

No. No. Well, and then probably his most famous one, I would say one of the most famous lines coming out of the trial as a whole, Right? Because when he was asked for his thoughts on KGM spending as much as 16 hours on Instagram in a single day, he replied, that sounds like problematic use. I mean, that really became, like, one of that problematic use for 16 hours. Oh, my God.

[C]

Yeah, it. It. It definitely that. That would qualify for one of the understatements of the century. You know, that's. That's like the fella who had seven hamburgers and said, I may have overeaten. I mean, that's the. The nuclear bomb that was dropped. And. And the comment was a, gee, we heard him. I mean, that. That's an. That's a gross, gross understatement. Unless you're Chris Goodrow, who's so happy for his kids to spend six hours a day on YouTube.

[A]

Let's talk about him now, because our next set of quotes are from the YouTube team. And VP of Engineering Christus Goodreau at YouTube said, we do not want people to be addicted to YouTube more than they are addicted to reading good books or listening to music. And.

[C]

And he tried to spin that like that means we don't want him addicted. Well, of course we love people reading good books. Of course we want good violinists who can play the violin or. Or some guitarist who can shred the guitar. I mean, we want people that are devoted to good things, Right? But we don't want them addicted. You notice he didn't say, we don't want them addicted to this any more than we want them addicted to heroin.

[A]

Right?

[C]

I mean, come on. What he's saying is, is let them use it.

[A]

It's crazy. That was crazy.

[C]

That was crazy.

[A]

Okay, a couple more from YouTube. And this was in Louis Lee's, their. Their head trial attorney in his opening statement and his closing argument, quote, it is not social media addiction if it's not really social media and it's not an addiction.

[C]

Yeah, nice try. The problem is it is social media and it is addiction. Now if it's not either, that's fine. You know, I'm not really a person if I don't exist and I'm not human. Okay? But I do exist, and I am human, so I'm a person. You know, I don't really have hair if I'm bald, but I'm not bald. I have hair. I don't really see if I don't have eyes, but I have eyes, so I see. I don't really hear if I don't have ears. But I have ears, and I hear it's not really social media addiction if it's not social media and they're not addicted to. True, but it is social media, and they are addicted.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Have a good day.

[A]

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. It was so crazy.

[C]

I've got to tell you, I'm ashamed of this. And I don't know how I can show it on. On the screen, but. So I sent a Friday after trial, I don't remember what day the jury came back, but on March 27, I found myself eating dinner with my wife. And so I sent a text message to Louis Lee. Huh. It's a picture of the chips.

[A]

The chips.

[C]

And I just said, thinking of you, because he kept making this big thing about, we're Mr. Lanier, compared us to the endless basket of chips at a Mexican restaurant. We're not chips. We're not. This is. This is an hour a day. An endless basket of chips. This. An endless basket of chips. So I. We wouldn't. Ate Mexican food. I had an endless basket of chips, and I just sent him a text picture and said, thinking of you.

[A]

The next quote, actually, Lee mentions the chips. So this is Louis Lee saying, all the features you heard about from Council, the tortilla chips, the roller coasters, they can be disabled. If you don't like it, turn it off. It's that simple. The only tool that works is the one you use.

[C]

Well, yeah, that. That. That's deceptive.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And if you add to it the addiction level, that's the equivalent of saying, you know, an alcoholic would never get drunk if he didn't drink. He's got the tools. The tool is, don't open the liquor. There's a cap. So there's a tool that. But you're talking about an addict. And do you expect. I mean, that's just crazy. So I don't think that's sensible. I don't think that applies.

[B]

And.

[C]

And it's the default is you have to go find it to use it. And that's not even an easy task. You know, one of the jokes we had going on inside ours was one of the fine lawyers for YouTube. I. I had trouble pronouncing her name.

[B]

Ariel something.

[C]

Yes, Ariel something. And. And I messed up the something part.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Sorry. Me too.

[C]

Yeah. It's got me nervous about trying to say it here. But Ariel, you know, she said, can't you do this just by going tap, tap, tap? And, you know, tap here, tap here, tap here. And so, you know, Since I had trouble with her name, we would. We often nickname people, and she was Miss Tap, tap, tap and tap, tap, tap. And in fact, even to make our team laugh, I said in one of the examinations, is this just tap, tap, tap to echo that? But those tools aren't readily available. They can't be readily used, and most people don't even know they exist.

[A]

I was just crying, laughing, because Sarah and I, in the episode from that week, we just went, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap. And we made so many people laugh, they told us afterwards, tap, tap, tap.

[B]

I know more Dancing for the Stars candidates here. Tap, tap, tap.

[C]

Yeah, well. Well, that was one of our big internal jokes. Another internal joke. You know, they had Cara Baggot on the stand for four days.

[A]

Six day bag. It wasn't it six?

[C]

Six. Was it six? Yeah. Well, it was around day four.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

That we went to our war room that night and realized one of our trusted comrades had put up a big sign as to be like, for signatures petition that just said in big, bold letters, hashtag, free Cara Bagot.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And so that became our other standing joke. Hashtag, free Carabagot.

[A]

She was a warrior, man. It was amazing.

[C]

She was. She did good. Jury loved her.

[A]

We loved her. I loved her. I was like, I gotta meet her later.

[C]

Yeah. She was a rock star.

[A]

Okay, last. Last quote from YouTube, and then we'll move on. So we had Louis lee and a YouTube engineer, Ian McMeans, state that Kaylee deleted her watch history from 2012 to 2019. And the back and forth on that mark was like. It was like watching a tennis match. You guys passed her back and forth six times. And so my question for you right now is, what actually happened with kaylee's missing data?

[C]

YouTube will not. They have a policy they. They won't keep on their servers data that. That exceeds somewhere. We don't know the exact number, but something in the 80,000 entry range. Mm. And they had put that in some fine print. Type in definitions in an obscure pleading. And so I read it by happenstance on the airplane flying out before he took the stand. And I thought, well, that's what it is. That's the reason it stops at 80,000. 80,000, whatever it is, is. That's their limit of what they can hold. Well, Louis Lee had never seen that. He wasn't aware of it.

[A]

Really.

[C]

And so when he. Yeah. And he was putting his whole campaign on this idea that she deleted her watch history. Wow. And so when I stood up to cross him and I only had 15 minutes with him because I was limited in time by the judge to whatever time they spent. So I had 15 minutes. And when I pointed it out that the answers to their interrogatories had a definition page and where they said that they only had 80,000 of her entries, they failed to show, and nobody seemed to indicate that. That's because they delete them. And so when I showed that to MC Means, Louis Lee was puckered, and he was like, oh, my gosh. And. And. And he tried to come back and confuse it with the jury. And then the judge let me try to come back and clarify, and then he tried to confuse. And then I tried to clarify, and then later on with somebody else, he made an objection when I said that it's the. Or maybe it was even in closing where he objected that I said, you know, she basically broke the Google servers. They couldn't. They couldn't. They couldn't keep more than 80,000 and. Objection. There's no evidence of that. The judge said, overruled. There absolutely is. That's what the evidence is. And she got it. But Luis Lee had not realized that. And that's why there was that back and forth.

[A]

Wow, what a miss on their end, huh?

[C]

Yeah, well, in fairness to him, most people don't see that some lowly associate does that somewhere. And whoever reads the definitions that accompany all of that, you just want to read the meat. And. But that was a definition. That was pretty important.

[A]

Yeah. You read it, you found it.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Thank goodness.

[C]

Thank goodness.

[B]

We are thrilled that you succeeded in proving that these companies built machines designed to addict our children's brains. And it was so interesting during the course of this lawsuit. Mark, I'd be like, on a plane and talking about the trial. Anyone you would mention it to? You know, we're in this trial trying to prove Instagram's addictive. Everyone goes, oh, yeah, of course it is. That's every single person's reaction. But you and the team actually proved it in a court of law, which is so tremendous. So we wanted to sort of ask you, looking ahead, and what this means, what this verdict means for not just Kaylee, but for all children. I know you mentioned you have 12 grandkids. Could you speak a little bit to what you feel like this verdict means for kids, even beyond Kaylee, I hope

[C]

that it is a major step forward in making better corporate citizens of social media, technology and companies, that it removes their get out of jail free card, which they have right now in the US that it serves as a motivator to make these companies realize that they, they can't blindly make profit off of abusing children and they need to be responsible and not just putting band aid on a bullet hole. They, they need, they need real responsibility, they need real tools. They need to really address this. And I was listening to one of the senators and the US Senator in a hearing yesterday and that senator pointed out, Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee, she pointed out that big, that social media and big tech have hired one lobbyist for every six members of Congress. That is outrageous. But when your trillion dollar, multi trillion dollar companies, you're able to do that. One lobbyist for every six members of Congress. What parent's gonna ever equal that? That's just real sad. So hopefully this verdict will be a step, a major step toward greater corporate responsibility.

[A]

And the fight is obviously not over. We're still in it. And you know, Meta and YouTube did not take this lying down. Can you speak to what they did after the verdict up until today?

[C]

Well, they immediately put their PR machine into full spin. They, they tried to accuse this of being lawyer manufactured litigation. I think at least one of their in house lawyers called me the equivalent of a gold digger. They tried to say that, you know, the jury didn't know what they were doing. They're in full spin mode. They will appeal it, they will be vindicated. And that's, I guess, to be expected of what their reaction would be, but that was it.

[A]

And to be clear for the listeners, there's thousands of other individual cases in the wings. In addition to the thousands of cases brought by school districts, dozens brought by state's attorney general. And so this is just the beginning. And it was quite a beginning. We're going to close out, I promise, in just a minute. But we want to, we always like to end with advice for parents.

[B]

Yeah. So speaking to parents now, Mark. So if a child asked their parent for Instagram, what would you say that parent should say?

[C]

I would say no, period. I would, I would explain why. You know, I've been asked before, what advice do you have for parents? And my advice is before they ask for Instagram, my advice to parents is talk to your kids. Talk to your kids about any and everything. Talk to them about what their day was. Talk to them about what they ate, talk to them about what they like, talk to them about who their friends are, talk to them about what they learned in school. Talked about, talk to them. Just talk to them. Have a relationship with your children where you talk to them openly and often. And then when you need to have the serious conversations. Then when your child is faced with a problem, you don't start out from, how do I talk to my kid? You start out from, I have a good relationship communicating with my child. And you know how you can handle it from there. So I think it starts before your child asks for Instagram, so that you can then sit there and say, you know, one of the things that, that we do every night is we lock the doors before we go to sleep. And it's because we want to protect you. We want to make sure nobody can get in here and hurt you. And Instagram lets people in and it's not your fault they get in, but they can get past any locked door, and we've got to try and protect you from that. And sometimes we have to lock the door, but sometimes you have to lock the door. And this is one where both of us need to lock the door. And the kid will say, yeah, but I'm not going to use it. And you can say to them, oh, I know I have all the trust and faith in the world in you. But I also know that it gets used anyway. You know, we're not going to invite crooks into the house, but if we don't lock the door, they may come in anyway. And so it's the same way. I think analogies that work like that help with a child, but it all starts with having a good basis for talking, communicating a good relationship with the child on that basis, whether your kid's not scared of you, your kid's not, you know, alienated and estranged from you. Their kids go through growing cycles where they, they do get some distance from their parents because they're trying to become independent. You know, teenage girls from their moms, you know, they're just these phases that kids go to. But even through those phases, you need to try and keep that communication open. And that's my best counsel I can give.

[A]

It makes me think of the word love. And I think we fight these trillion dollar companies with love. Like all we can do with our own kids is have a strong, loving relationship to protect them the best we can. And that's what I felt in the courtroom. That's what I felt from you and your daughters and the team. And that's what we felt from people all over the world. People were saying, we stand with families, I stand with families. It was families and love against these companies who are trying to break us down. And I think we have to win. And we are winning. It's a long fight and we're fighting the biggest foe ever. But I think love will win. Love always wins. Right? Isn't there a quote about that?

[C]

Yeah, there is. There is. The greatest of these is love. And I think you're right, Nikki. I think I couldn't have said it any better. And it goes back to my parental advice. That's part of loving your children, is having that relationship with them. That's one of communication, one of talking.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Last question to close out. What do you want the world to remember about this case, about Kaylee's case?

[C]

I think if I were going to put this in a short paragraph, I would say that there is evil in this world and there are people and forces that seek to chew up and spit out others for personal gain, for personal pleasure or personal power and prestige. And that may be a Goliath giant, but David can take his slingshot and by the grace of God, go out there and slay Goliath. And truth and love can win out when people are willing to stand up for what is right. And I guess that's what I would like this case to be remembered for.

[A]

And you stood up for what was right. And we are so grateful to you and your team and to everyone that was involved, even sitting at home and following along and talking about it. And so, Mark, thank you for taking so much time with us today. This is one of the most memorable conversations I've ever had. I think I laughed and cried. I can't wait for everyone to hear it. Right, Sarah?

[B]

Yes, absolutely. And I would be remiss if I also didn't say that so many of the survivor parents send their love and their love for their children who are no longer with us, too. That pierced through, I think, in a way that captured the attention of everyone's hearts. Because when they talk, that just breaks open your chest and you're like, I will do anything for these people. The love for their children. So how lucky are we who still have our children here to. To get to build a safer world because of their bravery. And so they also want me to pass along their hellos to you, Mark, as well.

[C]

Well, Nikki and Sarah, thank y' all for what you do. Those parents. Oh, if, if, if you ever needed motivation to try a case, seeing them, when you walk into the courtroom, when you turn around in the courtroom, when you walk out of the courtroom, you could get no greater motivation and drive. No parent should ever have to bury their children. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Our kids are supposed to bury us. And I just feel for every one of them. And anything we can do to help them or ease their pain, we want to do so. Thank you, guys. You all are difference makers.