“California, a prophet on the burning shore.” (h/t Bob Weir and John Perry Barlow.)
Merriam-Webster defines a prophet as one who foretells future events. California has long served that role when it comes to social, cultural, and legal trends.
Hula hoops went national from California in 1958. The first no‑fault divorce law was enacted there in 1969. And property‑tax reform — remember Howard Jarvis? — arrived via Proposition 13 in 1978.
It’s a long list of firsts: medical marijuana, same‑sex marriage, gig‑economy labor laws (think Uber drivers), skateboarding and surfing, the Summer of Love and the hippie movement, personal computing, venture capital, organic foods, mindfulness, plastic‑bag bans.
Many ideas first mocked in the so‑called flyover states often migrate east. California, for better or worse, is a proven trendsetter.
Now, another list.
The Ford Pinto — the 1971 model with a rear‑mounted fuel tank known to ignite in crashes, where executives declined an $11 fix despite internal tests. Firestone tires. Takata airbags. Fen‑Phen diet drugs. The GM ignition switch. Monsanto’s Roundup.
What’s the common denominator? When regulators and legislators failed to protect the public, trial lawyers stepped in.
This week, those two California traditions — innovation and litigation — merged. A Los Angeles jury returned a landmark verdict against Big Tech.
On Wednesday, jurors found Meta and Google liable for damages claimed by a 20‑year‑old woman who said the design of their platforms caused addiction and damaged her mental health. Meta, parent of Instagram and Facebook, was assigned 70% of the fault; Google, which operates YouTube, 30%. TikTok and Snap settled before trial. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and another $3 million in punitive damages ($2.1 million from Meta, $900,000 from Google).
For years, social‑media companies have been shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for user‑generated content. So how did this case reach a jury? Because the plaintiff didn’t sue over content; she alleged defective product design. Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and public “likes,” she argued, were engineered to maximize time on the platform — causing harm through addiction. The jury had to decide whether those design choices were defective and whether they substantially contributed to her injury.
It’s worth recalling that a Wall Street Journal editorial dismissed the suit before trial as a “shakedown,” accusing plaintiff lawyers of never letting a cultural panic go to waste. Yet now, the verdict fits another familiar pattern — the civil bar acting where government would not.
Also worth noting is Jean Twenge, the San Diego State psychologist who studies generational behavior. In her 2017 book “iGen”, Twenge highlighted a marked increase in youth mental‑health issues beginning around 2012 — the very moment smartphones became universal. At the time she spoke of correlation, not causation. But as data accumulated, her view shifted and she spoke of the causal connection between screen time and mental health. When I saw her in San Diego last month and asked about the case, she said she was limited in what she could say: she was listed as an expert witness. I don’t know if she testified at the trial but I am certain that her voice was of critical importance in educating us all.
As Gerald Posner observed in his Substack analysis: Big Tech’s “Big Tobacco” moment has arrived.
##
