In KMG v. Meta, the vulnerable plaintiff was a child. In future litigation, vulnerable plaintiffs of all types will allege that their vulnerabilities were anticipated and exploited by social media platforms, leading to the defrauding of elders in romance and finance scams, the deaths of the mentally infirm from suicide and other lethal seductions, and injuries due to exploitation or failure to accommodate disabilities.

Hi folks, I'm Charles Carreon, PunkLawyer, here to speak with you a little bit more about the KGM versus Meta case, and I've explained how the plaintiff avoided section 230 immunity, got past that defense, got past some causation defenses by showing that children did in fact suffer injury due to the intentionally engineered addictive features of the Facebook and other platforms, YouTube in particular. And so you had children, corporate knowledge, and intent to injure them -- that ignited not only a $3 million compensatory verdict, but a $3 million dollar punitive verdict that was due to fraud and oppression on behalf of the defendants.

Now, If there's anything we know about law, it's that it tends to expand and liability theories tend to expand beyond their initial scope. I would suggest that while the case is currently focused on minors, that we will see similar theories applied to elder abuse, algorithms that facilitate fraud, and romance scams that have sucked so much money out of the pockets of our elders, and these fraud networks that find that they work their way very easily into the algorithms of the social media platforms and gain credibility and access to vulnerable victims that way. People with mental health disabilities of various sorts are being injured by algorithms that reinforce depressing content, self-harm communities, people who are being induced to commit suicide, and there may also be an avenue of lawsuits for disabled people, for platforms that fail to anticipate known vulnerabilities that make people more likely to suffer harm due to addictive social media.

The key argument here is that the platforms have the data. They know who's vulnerable. They are taking advantage of these vulnerabilities deliberately. And while there may certainly be defenses asserted in that you don't want to get in the free will of people and you don't want to infringe their free speech and their access to free speech, nevertheless, when this harm is predictable and the injury is foreseeable, I think there is an avenue of liability there and wise attorneys will be pursuing it on behalf of their clients. And that's a little rough justice for you.