What Just Happened?

A Los Angeles jury has concluded that Meta and Google were responsible for harm suffered by a young woman who developed compulsive use of Meta-owned Instagram and Google’s YouTube from an early age.

In the case, the US-based plaintiff, now aged 20 and identified in court documents as “Kaley” or “KGM” (her full identity has not been publicly disclosed), said she began using YouTube at six and Instagram at nine, later experiencing anxiety, depression and body image issues. Jurors awarded $6m in damages, split between compensatory and punitive elements, and found that Instagram and YouTube had acted with what was described in court as malice, oppression or fraud.

Crucially, the jury determined that the platforms’ design was a substantial factor in causing harm, rather than focusing on the specific content viewed.

Why This Case Is Being Treated As A Milestone

What makes this case so noteworthy is that it is one of the first cases of its kind to reach a full jury verdict, and it is widely seen as an early indicator of a much larger wave of litigation.

There are already more than a thousand similar claims progressing through US courts, involving families, schools and public authorities. Legal experts expect this ruling to influence how future cases are argued, how damages are assessed, and whether companies choose to settle rather than go to trial.

Some legal commentators have also framed this moment as a broader turning point for the technology sector, comparable to earlier cases in other industries where product design and long-term harm became central to accountability.

As one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff stated after the verdict, “no company is above accountability when it comes to our children,” reflecting a wider sentiment that the legal threshold for responsibility may now be changing.

The Shift From Content To Design

One of the most important aspects of the case is actually what it did not focus on. US law has long protected technology companies from liability for user-generated content, limiting legal exposure in many previous cases. Instead, this case examined how platforms are built.

This distinction could prove significant beyond this single case. Legal protections such as Section 230 in the US have historically shielded platforms from responsibility for content, but a growing focus on design may place aspects of those protections under increased scrutiny.

The plaintiff’s legal team argued that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and constant notifications were intentionally designed to maximise engagement and keep users returning. These features are now common across most digital platforms, and are often described as engagement tools.

The jury accepted that these design choices could create patterns of compulsive use, particularly among younger users. As one expert witness described during proceedings, the question at the centre of the case was effectively how platforms are designed to ensure “a child never puts the phone down,” framing the issue as one of engineering rather than behaviour.

In Their Defence

Both Meta and Google have said they disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.

Meta has argued that mental health is complex and cannot be attributed to a single factor, while also pointing to its policies restricting under-13s from using its platforms. During testimony, its leadership maintained that their products are intended to have a positive impact.

Google’s defence focused on positioning YouTube as a video platform rather than a traditional social network, and questioned whether the usage patterns described in the case met the threshold for addiction.

These arguments are likely to form the basis of ongoing appeals and future legal disputes.

A Wider Pattern Of Legal And Political Pressure

It’s worth noting here that this verdict follows closely behind another US ruling that found Meta liable in a separate case involving child safety and harmful content exposure.

Notably, other major platforms involved in similar litigation, including TikTok and Snap, chose to settle before trial, which may indicate the level of legal and financial risk companies now associate with these claims.

At the same time, governments are increasingly exploring regulatory action. In the UK, for example, proposals to restrict social media access for under-16s are under active consideration, while Australia has already introduced measures targeting youth access and platform design.

Political leaders, including Keir Starmer, have signalled that the current approach to social media regulation may not be sufficient. He recently stated that the status quo is “not good enough,” indicating that further intervention is likely.

Campaign groups and families involved in similar cases argue that responsibility is beginning to move away from individuals and towards the companies designing these platforms.

Why This Matters Beyond Social Media

For technology companies more broadly, this case highlights a growing legal focus on how digital products are designed, not just how they are used.

Courts are increasingly treating platform design as a series of deliberate choices rather than neutral features, meaning those decisions may carry legal and ethical consequences in the same way as other product design decisions.

Many business models rely on capturing attention and encouraging repeated engagement. Techniques that support this, such as personalised recommendations and continuous content feeds, are widely used across sectors including media, retail and software.

This also seems to highlight the tension in social media platforms between user wellbeing and commercial performance. Features that maximise engagement are often closely tied to advertising revenue and platform growth, which means any legal pressure to change them could have direct business implications.

The risk here is that these same techniques could now face greater scrutiny if they are seen to contribute to harm, particularly where younger or vulnerable users are involved.

This could lead to a reassessment of how engagement is measured and prioritised within digital services.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This ruling signals that digital design choices are becoming a matter of legal and commercial risk, not just user experience.

For Meta Platforms, Google, and other major platforms such as TikTok and Snap Inc., it raises the prospect of sustained legal exposure. This case is widely expected to influence hundreds of similar lawsuits, increasing the likelihood of further damages, settlements, and pressure to redesign core product features that drive engagement.

Businesses that operate platforms, apps or online services should now perhaps begin to review how their products encourage user behaviour, particularly if they rely heavily on notifications, recommendations or continuous scrolling. Features that were once seen as standard may now require clearer justification, stronger safeguards, and potentially formal risk assessments, especially where younger users are involved.

There is also a broader reputational consideration here. Public expectations are changing, and organisations seen to prioritise engagement over user wellbeing may face increased scrutiny from customers, regulators and partners. For large platforms, this could translate into tighter regulation, limits on certain design practices, and closer oversight of how algorithms influence behaviour.

For companies using social media as a marketing channel, this case raises questions about long-term platform stability. Ongoing legal challenges and potential regulation could alter how these platforms operate, how audiences engage, and how data is used, particularly if engagement-driven features are restricted or redesigned.

For the largest platforms, this may ultimately lead to more fundamental changes in how products are designed, especially if courts or regulators begin to place limits on features that are closely linked to prolonged user engagement.

It seems now that accountability is expanding across the sector, and both platform providers and the businesses that rely on them will need to adapt to a landscape where design decisions, not just content, are subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny.

The post Featured Article : Meta And YouTube Found Liable In Landmark Social Media Addiction Case appeared first on Mear Technology.

Building and Defending a Search Monopoly 

Following a ten-week trial, in a 277-page opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta, said: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” Following this landmark ruling, the judge laid out his reasons for finding Google guilty of violating antitrust laws through building and defending a monopoly. He highlighted how Google had spent spending billions of dollars to secure exclusive agreements with developers, carriers, and equipment makers to be the default search engine. For example, the judge said Google had done this using: 

– Exclusive agreements. Google spent billions of dollars to secure agreements with phone/device manufacturers, carriers, and browser developers to make Google the default search engine on various platforms. As the judge put it, “The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points.” Underlying this is the basic assertion by the judge that if Google search were not the default (which it paid to be), or there was another search engine as the default, users would not end up using Google. 

– These deals by Google effectively locked-out competitors (with much smaller budgets) from gaining market share in the search engine industry. For example, Google paid billions of dollars annually to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others (typically paying a massive £7.8bn a year) to be pre-installed as the default search engine across platforms (see below). 

– Pre-Installation on devices. Google ensured that its search engine was pre-installed and set as the default on a wide array of devices, including mobile phones, through agreements that required manufacturers to do so in exchange for access to the Google Play Store and other Google services. This strategy helped to reinforce Google’s dominant position by making it very difficult for consumers to switch to alternative search engines, thereby shutting out competitors and limiting choice. 

– Restricting competitors. The judge’s ruling also highlighted how Google restricted competitors from gaining traction, i.e. by preventing other search engines from being easily accessible or discoverable on devices that carried Google as the default option. These tactics were seen as deliberately designed to suppress competition. 

– Manipulating market outcomes. Judge Mehta also pointed out that Google’s extensive financial resources and strategic partnerships enabled it to manipulate market outcomes in its favour, thereby further entrenching its monopoly power. The judge argued that by maintaining control over key distribution channels, Google was able to secure and sustain its dominance in the market. 

Dominance 

The level of dominance Google has achieved is made clear at the beginning of the Judge’s ruling statement where he highlighted how Google’s dominance has gone unchallenged for well over a decade. For example, the statement highlights how, in 2009, “80 per cent of all search queries in the United States already went through Google” and by 2020, “it was nearly 90 per cent, and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95 per cent”. The statement also illustrated the gulf between Google and its competitors, saying “The second-place search engine, Microsoft’s Bing, sees roughly 6 per cent of all search queries—84 per cent fewer than Google”. 

Money Spent On Agreements Vs Finacial Return 

The recent case has exposed how Google maintained its monopoly by spending billions on exclusive agreements to be the default search engine on devices and browsers but did so because the returns from its search advertising would be so much greater.  

For example, the payments it made included both direct deals with companies like Apple and revenue-sharing arrangements that incentivised partners to prioritise Google over others. The financial return for Google came through its highly profitable search advertising model. In short, by ensuring it was the default option, Google maximised the volume of searches conducted on its platform, leading to a vast number of ad impressions and clicks (seeing and clicking on the ads shown on its search engine results pages.  

The revenues from search advertising significantly outweighed the costs of these agreements, making this strategy extremely profitable for Google. This was a key aspect of the judge’s reasoning, illustrating how Google’s investments in maintaining its monopoly paid off financially. 

Search Innovation Has Suffered 

In ruling that Google acted to build a monopoly to the point that “There is no genuine ‘competition for the contract.’ Google has no true competitor”, the judge also highlighted how this situation may have affected the evolution of search. For example, the judge made the point “The distribution agreements have caused a third key anticompetitive effect: They have reduced the incentive to invest and innovate in search.” 

Win For The People? 

The US Justice Department, which brought the case against Google, was clearly happy that the outcome was not just a victory for its Antitrust Division, but as Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said: “This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people”. Mr Garland also made the point that “No company – no matter how large or influential – is above the law” and that “This landmark decision holds Google accountable. It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.” 

Defence 

Some of the key arguments put forward by Google’s lawyers in its defence centered around: 

– Google’s innovation and competition. For example, Google emphasised that it faces significant competition from other tech companies including Amazon and TikTok, which serve different user needs. They argued that the company’s success is due to its continuous innovation and improvements in search quality, i.e. making it legitimately the best search engine, not simply anticompetitive behavior. 

– Consumer benefits. It was also argued that the agreements Google made to be the default search engine actually benefited consumers by providing a superior search experience. They argued that these practices led to better products and services for users. 

– Lawful agreements. The defence contended that the agreements Google secured with device manufacturers and other partners were lawful business practices, common in competitive markets. They insisted that these contracts were not designed to stifle competition but were part of standard industry practices. 

It’s worth noting also that even the judge appeared to acknowledge at least Google’s efforts over the years to reach its dominant position, saying: “Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance. It has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business decisions. The result is the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users.” 

Structural Relief 

The outcome of the judge’s ruling that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly on its online search is that it could pave the way for ‘structural’ remedies in the future, i.e. ‘structural relief’, especially if Google’s anticompetitive practices are not curbed through other means. 

In antitrust law, structural relief essentially refers to remedies that involve altering the structure of a company to restore competitive conditions in a market. This could, for example, include breaking up a company into smaller entities, divesting certain business units, or making changes to the company’s ownership or operations to reduce its market power. It should be noted, however, that Judge Amit Mehta, did not immediately mandate such measures in this case. 

What Now? 

Google is, of course, expected to appeal the ruling. The legal process has already taken several years, and the appeal is likely to extend the case further.  However, following the ruling, what structural relief could actually mean for Google and its Search could include: 

– Breaking Up Google as we know it. This most extreme option could involve splitting Google into separate entities, such as divesting the search engine from other services like Android and YouTube. 

– Ending default agreements. Google may be prevented from paying companies like Apple to be the default search engine, possibly encouraging the development of rival search engines. 

– Introducing user choice screens. One interesting idea is that users may end up being presented with a choice of search engines when setting up devices. 

These changes could impact both Google’s market dominance and user experience, although significant shifts like this (and the appeal) are likely to take quite some time. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

This monumental ruling against Google appears to mark a pivotal moment not just for the tech giant but for the entire digital ecosystem. For Google, the immediate future involves navigating legal appeals while potentially reassessing its business strategies that have long hinged on securing default positions across devices and platforms. Should structural remedies be enforced, Google’s operations could undergo significant transformations, possibly leading to a more fragmented corporate structure and altering how its services are integrated across products. 

For competitors, this ruling could open a gateway to previously inaccessible markets. For example, search engines like Microsoft’s Bing, DuckDuckGo and other emerging players may now stand a chance to gain traction, especially if default agreements are dismantled. This could invigorate innovation in search technologies, offering diverse experiences and features that cater to varied user preferences. The potential for increased competition might also drive down advertising costs, presenting new opportunities for businesses to diversify their digital marketing strategies. 

Companies that had agreements with Google, such as device manufacturers and browser developers, may now find themselves at a crossroads. The lucrative deals that once ensured Google’s default presence could be scrutinised or prohibited, compelling these companies to reevaluate their partnerships and possibly explore collaborations with alternative search providers. This shift could foster a more competitive bidding environment, benefiting these companies through diversified revenue streams and partnerships. 

The market, in response, may now be poised for a renaissance of competition and innovation. The dismantling of monopolistic practices may lead to a more leveled playing field, perhaps encouraging the emergence of niche search services tailored to specific industries or user needs. This diversification could stimulate advancements in search algorithms, user interfaces, and integration with other digital services. 

For businesses that rely heavily on search engine marketing, this ruling could have far-reaching implications. As the dominance of Google faces potential dilution, companies may need to adapt their SEM strategies to account for a broader array of platforms. This could mean diversifying ad spend across multiple search engines, learning to navigate different advertising ecosystems, and potentially even adjusting key performance indicators (KPIs) as new competitors enter the market. 

The potential increase in competition among search engines might lead to more competitive advertising rates, which could be advantageous for businesses looking to optimise their SEM budgets. However, this could also introduce complexity, requiring businesses to manage and optimise campaigns across several platforms rather than focusing solely on Google. The need for specialised knowledge in multiple search engine algorithms and advertising models will likely increase, necessitating further investment in digital marketing expertise.

The post Featured Article : Google in Monumental Monopoly Ruling appeared first on Mear Technology.

The Lawsuit

Back in January, printing premier HP was sued in a Federal court in Chicago by 11 consumers (a class action lawsuit) who claimed that their HP printers wouldn’t accept replacement ink cartridges made by other manufacturers, thereby forcing them to pay artificially high prices for HP-branded cartridges. The lawsuit accused HP of violating US and state antitrust laws in a bid to monopolise the market for replacement ink.

The plaintiffs allege that they weren’t told that automatic software updates (firmware updates between late 2022 and early 2023) from HP would disable some printers unless HP-branded ink was used and that faced with non-functional printers, they were then forced to purchase more expensive HP-branded ink that they would not otherwise have purchased.

Damages

The plaintiffs, in this case, are seeking damages of greater than $5 million from HP, which include the cost of their useless third-party cartridges (the ones that won’t work in their printers because of the firmware update) as well as an injunction to disable the part of the firmware updates that prevent the usage of third-party ink.

Trying To Get IT Dismissed

HP’s lawyers recently attempted to have all 79 causes of action in the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that the central premise of the Plaintiffs’ case was wrong, i.e. that HP failed to disclose to consumers that their printers were equipped with “dynamic security” measures designed to prevent the use of third-party printer cartridges that copy HP’s security chips, thereby locking them into an aftermarket where they were overcharged.

HP argued that it goes to great lengths to disclose that its printers are intended to work only with cartridges that “have an HP chip, and that they may not work with third-party cartridges that do not have an HP chip.” HP also argued that “this information is displayed in clear terms on the printer box, on HP’s website, and in many other materials.” It also highlighted that “many third-party cartridges are not affected by dynamic security. HP does not block cartridges that reuse HP security chips, and there are many such options available for sale. Nor does HP conceal its use of dynamic security.”

HP’s lawyers additionally argued that the plaintiffs also didn’t allege that they didn’t authorise firmware updates in their printers and that many plaintiffs also claim that they purchased HP-branded ink cartridges after receiving the software or firmware updates, and that their printers began to again function properly.

In short, HP’s lawyers attempted to find a long list of reasons to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Previously

These types of allegations against HP have gone on for some time now. For example, back in 2019, HP agreed to resolve related consumer claims in a California case, for a $1.5 million payment, without admitting any wrongdoing (as part of the settlement). However, just last year (in California) a judge said that HP must at least face some claims that it designed some all-in-one printers to stop scanning and faxing when the machine was low on ink, thereby forcing consumers to buy cartridges.

The Backdrop

All these antitrust printing arguments are taking place at a time when HP has been through a long period of shrinking revenues, mainly due to enterprise customers affected by the uncertain economic environment, holding off on their hardware purchases a bit longer.

Instant In Subscription & All-in-One service

Following a strategy re-think, two solutions that HP has devised to help it through these difficult times are its ‘Instant Ink’ services and its All-in-One service, both of which see it focusing on a subscription model going forward.

HP’s Instant Ink service is a subscription-based model that is beneficial for users who want to avoid the inconvenience of running out of ink and dealing with last-minute replacements. It also helps in managing printing costs more predictably. With Instant Ink (for a monthly fee, on an agreed plan), the HP printer’s ability to monitor ink levels means that before users’ ink runs low, HP sends replacement cartridges directly to the doorstep. HP claimed to have 13 million sign-ups to the service back in the beginning of March.

As the name suggests, The All-in-One service, which launched in the US last month, includes not just the ink but hardware as well, i.e. the HP Envy or HP OfficeJet models. This is also a two-year subscription contract, based on a printed page plan, with cancellation fees (to raise the barriers to exit).

In addition to trying to reduce its costs, HP’s CEO, Enrique Lores, speaking recently at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom conference outlined HP’s strategy since the 2019 rethink as trying to “protect supplies revenue by upping subscription services, selling hardware loaded with ink, smart models, and charging more for printers when a customer isn’t committing to HP ink.”

AI Apps Too

HP is also hoping that AI will boost PC sales and has indicated that alongside its PCs, it’s developing new AI applications to run on top of its installed base of more than 200 million commercial devices.

Printing Declining Anyway

Despite HP’s court battles over printer ink and its move to a subscription-based model, for many businesses, the need (and demand) for printers and ink has declined in recent years. This has been due to factors like the greater proliferation of digital tools and technologies, advancements in cloud computing and software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms and businesses are moving towards greener practices (despite printer companies trying to produce more sustainable/greener ink). Also, the need to reduce costs has favoured digital storage over printed documents, alongside a disruption in global supply chains (e.g. for paper), plus the effects of the pandemic also meant a lowering of demand for printers and ink.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Having to constantly renew expensive ink cartridges or running out of ink at the wrong time have long been a significant cost and source of frustration to many businesses. In recent years, however, many businesses, for many of the reasons above, have updated to becoming more reliant on the cloud and digital solutions rather than printed documents. HP itself has had to change its strategy in 2019, moving customers to a subscription model for its ink and hardware in order to weather difficult economic times and falling demand.

This court case around HP’s attempt to curtail consumers’ adoption of cheaper third-party ink cartridges in favour of more expensive HP ones is likely to be unwelcome and reputationally damaging for HP at a time where it needs to protect its position in the marketplace. For competitors, HP’s dominance being challenged is good news and could provide a beneficial commercial outcome for them if events go the wrong way for HP.

For business customers who still need a printer, the ability to have trouble-free operation with their printers and to be able to benefit from the choice of using different, lower-priced print cartridge alternatives are likely to be valuable. Most of us will understand the frustration that printer ink problems can cause.

Looking ahead for HP, its cost-cutting and its shift to a subscription model for its ink/printer products, plus the promise of developing AI apps for its large installed base of commercial devices are ways it hopes to turn around the declining revenues of challenges of recent years. The company has a trusted business brand and the hope for HP is that their valuable brand won’t be tarnished too much by the outcome of the lawsuit that’s currently making the headlines.

The post Featured Article : A Big Stink About Ink appeared first on Mear Technology.