By STEVE BRAWNER
Is YouTube harmful, and is it guilty of wrongdoing? Attorney General Tim Griffin says yes to both, and that’s why he’s suing it.
Griffin announced recently that his office has filed suit against YouTube, Google, and their parent company, Alphabet, in Phillips County Circuit Court. He said it’s the first lawsuit of its kind filed by a state against YouTube.
The Attorney General stated in the lawsuit and in a press conference that the company had violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by deceiving users and parents about its platforms’ safety and addictiveness.
This come a few months after Griffin announced he was suing Chinese company Temu, saying it is really a spyware platform masquerading as an online marketplace. Last year, he sued two other giant social media companies: Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, and Tiktok, saying they also had deceived users about their safety.
The latest lawsuit argues that YouTube is designed to addict users through a variety of means such as recommendations and the autoplay feature that feeds viewers one video after another based on their interests and histories. It says its platform and harmful content have contributed to a youth mental health crisis marked by widespread depression, self-harm, suicidal thoughts and attempts, and body dysmorphia, which is a focus on a flaw in one’s appearance.
“This increase in mental health problems among children is not an accident, but rather, the result of calculated efforts by social media companies to attract and addict youth to their platforms and to grow revenues without regard for the harmful effects that these companies know exist,” the lawsuit says.
As a result, the state has spent millions of dollars for mental health and other services, the lawsuit says. He’s seeking civil penalties, damages and other forms of restitution through a jury trial.
Will it get to that point? Griffin said the big companies initially try to fight such lawsuits and then start talking about a settlement. A trial would make national news, especially if the Phillips County jury ruled against YouTube.
One challenge for Griffin will be drawing a provable link between social media companies’ actions and the harms they cause.
There’s no question that many young people, and old people like me, spend far too much time on social media, and it’s not good for us.
However, are social media companies a root cause of the mental health crisis, or just one ingredient of the whole toxic mix of modern American life? What’s the real problem – that a person is looking at YouTube alone, or the fact that the person is alone, idle, and disconnected from reality, nature and other people? A good lawyer can argue the second.
Also to be determined is what YouTube would be guilty of. Of course it designed its products to engage users for as long as possible. That’s how it sells ads and makes money. Almost every type of company depends on repeat business, so the question becomes, did they addict us, and how did they do it?
It’s a question that must be answered on a case by case basis. Tobacco companies created products with little redeeming value that used addictive properties to create lifelong consumers. Society has rightly punished them. Opioid makers created drugs that are useful in moderation and harmful in excess, and then marketed them excessively. They’ve been rightly punished.
But everyone knows alcohol is addictive and harmful, and policymakers’ response has been mostly to urge moderation, try to limit youth purchases, and pass DWI laws. Cola companies add addictive caffeine in their beverages, which have played a massive role in the obesity epidemic. Policymakers have chosen to tax them a little. Fast food is obviously addictive, too, judging by our waistlines. Again, we just tax it some. Big box retailers have made a science of getting consumers to spend as much money as possible. They’re selling stuff just like YouTube is selling screen time. But they both have the same goal: make money off us.
And if we’re talking about screens, what about old-fashioned TV? I cannot believe how much of my youth I spent staring at that box. Surely something in those flashing lights and ridiculous plot devices drew me back again and again.
I’m not saying Griffin has no case. I know from experience that YouTube is addictive. Its creators did a good job.
I’m saying the case comes down to this: Do we treat it like tobacco, sodas or TV?
We’ll see what a jury in Phillips County decides – if it gets to that point.
Steve Brawner is a syndicated columnist published in 17 outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com.