r/videos • u/goosepipegames • 19h ago
I'm Suing Meta, TikTok, Snap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIsI4H5aooo407
142
u/Joebranflakes 13h ago
He points out in the video he’s one of many law firms who are suing. It honestly feels like he’s piling on a bit, but I guess that’s what you do when you’re a lawyer.
33
u/Hrothgar_unbound 6h ago
Or a content creator.
5
3
u/mymikerowecrow 2h ago
We can’t get enough lawyers and content creators suing these companies until shit changes.
69
u/Goonalips 13h ago
America is just going to end up with a similar law to Australia where the kids under 16 are banned from social media, which means that adults have to provide ID to use it. I'm always suspicious of a "protect the kids" argument.
11
u/MiaowaraShiro 5h ago
I don't think it needs to go that far... the crux of a lot of this was that Meta et al knew and intended for underage people to be on the site. There are documents literally talking about attracting tweens.
They just need to not cater to children directly like they've been doing and stop actively trying addict people (and remove minors when verified).
22
u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy 10h ago
I agree with your skepticisim about the "protect the kids" argument... and we should protect boomers too...
We need to insist that the solution is not ID and banning children, but auditing algorithms, duty of care... for the benefit of everyone.
3
u/Dangerpaladin 6h ago
That's because protect the kids has been the excuse for generations to limit personal freedoms.
•
u/inflatableje5us 22m ago
my response to "think of the children" is usually along the lines of "id rather not, enough of you seem to be doing that already"
i do seem to like to poke bee's nests tho.
14
214
u/Xsiah 16h ago
I'm usually on team LegalEagle, but this is a bit too far for me in terms of content. He started putting more sponsors in each video recently, in addition to advertising his law firm, and this is basically just recruiting clients for that law firm under the thin guise of a legal video. He does very few videos on his own now, and only pops in to sell something. Feels like enshittification.
210
u/Terrible_Tell3115 15h ago
Pretty sure he's doing the same amount of videos himself, they're just putting out more than before with the other hosts. I haven't watched this one yet but it's all been pretty solid lately to me.
40
u/Xsiah 15h ago
Don't get me wrong, I love Liz and the others, but I've been watching for years and it's starting to feel different. Things are a little more superficial, there's a bit less actual law involved, and the ad time in the videos if you include the two sponsors and his own ad at the end have made the videos seem shorter (I haven't timed it, but the video lengths are roughly the same as they were before these changes)
39
u/Terrible_Tell3115 15h ago
Ah. My YouTube player skips all the ads, "in video" and otherwise, so I never see that.
2
u/shazbottled 14h ago
How do you do that? Setting in premium?
33
8
2
u/trigunnerd 13h ago
In addition to Revanced, you can use the Brave browser to skip ads, even on your phone, and even listen to videos with them minimized.
7
u/joshwal 12h ago
Just FYI, Brave has had a few issues over the years, and isn’t the most trustworthy.
25
u/beku 14h ago
I also feel the pacing of the videos increased, as well as the clickbaity-ness, and the sensationalism.
It sounds like he's speaking at 1.5x.
As someone who likes space and my videos to breath I've stopped watching this channel as it feels like the quality has gone down hill dramatically (as with a ton of other youtubers, I'm looking at you Babish)
7
u/luvz 15h ago
You sound familiar with this. What’s the tldr of this vid if you don’t mind?
37
u/Xsiah 15h ago
He's starting a class action on behalf of kids addicted to social media. Since the algorithm is part of the platform, not part of the content that's protected by the law that says publishers aren't liable for what individual users might post that could pose harm, they can go after the algorithm that keeps kids scrolling. It's modeled after a similar case that already exists - he seems to want to make it a class action on behalf of a bigger group of kids.
I don't have a problem with the lawsuit, for what it's worth, it just seems like he's using the channel to advertise his law business, which he will directly profit from if he wins.
28
u/BeeExpert 13h ago
He's always used his channel to advertise his law firm. I don't see any problem with that
5
u/Xsiah 8h ago
He didn't even have a law firm when I started watching. That's part of what I mean.
15
u/ITividar 7h ago
I mean, kinda the end-point for most lawyers is to set up their own firm. So are you somehow mad at him for progressing in his lawyer career?
-12
u/Xsiah 7h ago
I'm mad that he's taking advantage of my eyeballs to do it, yes. That's what I mean by enshittification - he's built up an audience by providing a service that fairly trades his work for views, and now that he has a large enough audience he is sacrificing it to funnel attention to a thing that benefits him primarily - to the detriment of his audience.
He's allowed to start a law firm, buy a goat farm, or do whatever else he wants - but I'm not like a groupie of Devin Stone and whatever he chooses to do in life; I'm a viewer of this YouTube channel - and this YouTube channel is suffering because he is not willing to keep his other business separate from it.
6
u/ITividar 7h ago
Youre already assuming any payout from a class action lawsuit (of which LegalEagle isnt the only participant) is going directly in the pocket of his firm and its making you big mad over something that hasn't happened.
3
u/ghoonrhed 5h ago
Feels like enshittification.
I guess it was time that this word was overused to mean "I don't like it anymore" vs the actual process of platforms actually enshittifying.
-1
u/Xsiah 5h ago
I said feels like, not is, because it doesn't strictly apply, but I feel like I explained why I think that's the case beyond "I don't like it"
Enshittification, also known as platform decay, is a process in which two-sided online products and services decline in quality over time. Initially, vendors create high-quality offerings to attract users, then they degrade those offerings to better serve business customers, and finally degrade their services to both users and business customers to maximise short-term profits for shareholders.
Replace platform with channel and replace business customers and shareholders with Devin's other business and Devin himself.
6
u/StageAboveWater 13h ago
The channel is doing really important work commuinicating to a large audiance just how truely fucked up and corrupt the legal stuff the Trump administration is doing.
I think it's better to support them then complain at this time
4
2
u/lazydogjumper 6h ago
At some point these Youtube channels become a "business" more than just putting out videos. Many channels now have an actual staff of editors and others working on it. As such, they tend to need more sponsors and shift to more business-like methods.
-7
u/Im_fairly_tired 15h ago
Yup, this seems like the endgame for LegalEagle and friends. “I didn’t start my own law firm to make money…” then proceeds to start a class action suit against TikTok, Google, and Meta the second he smells blood in the water, and uses his channel’s audience built through trust to recruit litigants.
I mean, screw the social media companies, take them for all they have. But LegalEagle is doing exactly what you would expect of a lawyer who is trying to make the maximum amount of money possible through the legal profession.
I wouldn’t use him for this class action suit, by the way. This is naked opportunism, not the act of a savior. There are law firms with FAR more expertise and experience that will be looking to join the feeding frenzy.
-9
u/oby100 13h ago
He sold out years ago and it’s total shit now. Can’t stand those thumbnails. I’m sick of YouTubers getting big on their personal brand and then force feeding you terrible sidekick content.
And worst of all, he just doesn’t cover actual legal cases. Just as nauseum, “it’s probably illegal for the president to do this, but he’s immune and the Supreme Court might let him do it officially.”
Wow! Such analysis.
•
u/plumbumplumbumbum 18m ago
The enshittification has been really apparent in the thumbnails they have been using.
-13
u/NeedAVeganDinner 14h ago
It's like Lock Picking Lawyer
The moment you realize you've been watching one of the greatest advertising campaigns in history is the moment him opening locks suddenly becomes way less interesting.
Just another commercial
6
u/Barmy90 14h ago
Wait, what's the problem with LPL?
5
u/Ghooble 13h ago
I'm assuming they mean him advertising his lock picks?
10
u/Barmy90 13h ago
I assume so as well, but the guy has been making exactly the same video for years, the fact he also has a site selling lockpicking hobby tools or whatever feels like a totally natural and non-invasive extension - not remotely like that outright client recruiting going on in LE videos.
-4
u/Blythyvxr 12h ago
He’s rarely doing any locks that would be considered challenging, just pointing out shit locks and showing off his company’s products. Never does challenge locks from community anymore.
-2
u/MedicOnReaddit 5h ago
I unsubscribed due to the obvious inshittification. Their content isn't worth the same drab sponsor plugs over and over.
-5
u/Psianth 5h ago
Remember when he said he was suing the government? Six years ago? I do. Click bait bullshit then and now.
2
u/Xsiah 5h ago
Lawsuits take a long time. Six years isn't an unreasonable amount of time. I don't have an issue with him doing lawyer stuff - I have an issue with him using his channel to promote himself in other contexts.
1
u/Psianth 5h ago
What contexts?
1
u/Xsiah 5h ago
The contexts of his other work. I don't begrudge him working as a lawyer. I begrudge him using his YouTube channel to solicit clients for his law company.
If he was a lawyer who used YouTube to promote his law business I wouldn't have subscribed to him - but he was a content creator who used his law experience to create informative and entertaining content. Now he's taking advantage of the credibility he built up to be a lawyer who advertises his law business.
11
u/lilsaddam 17h ago
I hope it works out but it will go just as well as when he sued PayPal (Honey)
139
u/Jestersfriend 16h ago
Huh? What do you mean? They attempted to dismiss the claim (Paypal), the judge found issues with the filing, but gave LegalEagle a chance to amend it. He amended it and Paypal attempted to have the case dismissed. The judge denied this. Case now has to go through the courts.
30
u/current_thread 13h ago edited 13h ago
(just for completeness: there are significantly more law firms involved in that case than just legal eagle)
6
u/Jestersfriend 13h ago
Yes, fair enough of a comment. You are absolutely correct. Thank you for the addition!
84
55
-30
u/StevynTheHero 17h ago
I keep hearing about him suing this and that but never hear the results so its probably never a good outcome.
93
u/AVLLaw 17h ago
lawsuits take years.
11
u/pabloivan57 16h ago
This ^ +1000 times
3
u/DanieltheMani3l 16h ago
Lawsuits take 1000s of years?
8
u/TheConboy22 16h ago
They will no longer remember your name when this lawsuit ends. Generations of lawyers will defend the idea of you.
-18
17h ago
[deleted]
12
3
u/originalgrapeninja 16h ago
What, exactly, do you think the money does, space cadet?
1
u/angelofox 13h ago
No, dipshit. If money didn't control everything. We wouldn't be in the situation anyway. Oh, wait we are
2
u/theOGFlump 16h ago
While that is generally true, one of the main reasons is that you can get overwhelmed with legal fees. Helps if you don’t have to worry about those. Judges, by and large, aren’t strongly biased towards richer clients (there are exceptions and that can go both ways), so if you have the resources to get through the legal process, you have a real shot at success with a good legal argument. And if it makes it to trial, well then you have a jury of your peers, and if anything, they’re more likely to be biased towards the little guy. The problem with the system is mostly cost of access, not as much the process itself (though it is very far from perfect).
2
u/angelofox 13h ago
Right? Because the cases of affluenza where the person gets off is just fake
1
u/theOGFlump 4h ago
Never said they were. I’m talking systemically, not anecdotally. And I’m talking particularly about the court system, not the practical issues that cause most cases not to be decided in a courtroom. The issue with rich people getting off often comes down to them having more resources available to them than the government can dedicate to their prosecution, given all the other cases they have to deal with, or more resources than the people bringing a civil case against them. I’m saying, where it comes down to a decision by a judge or by a jury (not a plea deal or settlement), there’s not some overwhelming bias in their favor. The issue is having the resources to get the case to that point.
1
u/angelofox 3h ago
You really believe juries cannot be impartial? We can view these juries and judges systematically and how they acted in the past to get a good view of how they will act in the future.
1
u/theOGFlump 3h ago
I'm a lawyer. I know juries can be impartial, and I know that many times they aren't. That's why lawyers with highly unlikeable clients often encourage them to settle or take a plea even if the case has a strong legal footing. We look at juries as black boxes- who tf knows what will go on in their deliberations. Sometimes they view the facts only, sometimes they take into account who the parties are. Sometimes all it takes is one highly obstinate juror, or lackthereof, to completely reverse a verdict. Systemically, to the extent that there is a bias among juries as a whole, it favors someone who would like be the "average" juror - not an elite, not a corporation, not a criminal.
•
u/FunkyToasterGoose 1h ago
Im all for suing these mega corps, but is there not a responsibility of parents to monitor what, and how much your child is on social media? I feel this is glossed over way to much. To many parents dont actually want to 'parent' their kids
-1
1
u/Leptonshavenocolor 4h ago
Good, I know they will survive (face suck), but anything to hurt them is nice.
-4
0
-7
17h ago edited 17h ago
[deleted]
16
u/ankercrank 17h ago
Good thing you didn’t watch it, otherwise you might have been right?
0
17h ago
[deleted]
16
u/JeulMartin 17h ago
Yet you decide to spend your sUpEr vAluABlE time ignorantly commenting on videos you haven't watched? What a strange way to live.
-82
u/Mallanaga 17h ago
No shade, but you look like the suing type.
35
58
u/RonnieDaBear 17h ago
His videos are great you should give him a shot. He probably looks so litigious because he's a lawyer
18
-1
-24
u/BadJimo 14h ago
Summary of video by Gemini:
LegalEagle explains a historic jury verdict against major social media companies regarding platform addiction and announces his law firm's involvement in representing victims.
1. The $6 Million Landmark Verdict
A Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million in compensatory damages to 20-year-old plaintiff Kaylee in a bellwether lawsuit (KGM v. Meta) [00:38]. Kaylee, who started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, spent up to 16 hours a day on social media, leading to severe psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation [08:40].
2. Bypassing Section 230 Protection
Social media giants typically rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect themselves from liability for third-party user content [03:41]. However, the court allowed this lawsuit to proceed under a product liability theory [05:40]. The claim focused on the platforms' independent product designs—such as infinite scroll, push notifications, beauty filters, and auto-play—which were allegedly engineered to induce compulsive use and addiction in minors [06:33].
3. Damning Internal Evidence & Zuckerberg’s Testimony
Mark Zuckerberg on the Stand: In his first time testifying before a jury, Zuckerberg was confronted by plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier [11:16]. Lanier presented internal documents indicating that around 4 million kids under 13 were actively using Instagram [11:27], along with company targets aiming to increase time spent on the app by 10-year-olds [12:05].
Internal Company Communications: Internal emails revealed Instagram employees comparing the platform to a "drug" and describing themselves as "pushers" [09:45]. Internal Google documents similarly compared YouTube’s engagement mechanics to a "casino" [10:24].
Ignored Health Warnings: Evidence showed Meta disregarded internal warnings from experts about how digital beauty filters contributed to severe body image issues among young girls [12:53].
4. Jury Decision & Fault Allocation
The jury determined that Meta and YouTube were negligent, failed to warn users about known dangers, and that their product design was a substantial factor in causing harm [15:03]. Under California's comparative fault system, liability was split: Meta (Instagram): 70% of the fault [15:25] Alphabet (YouTube): 30% of the fault [15:25]
Additionally, the jury awarded $3 million in punitive damages after concluding the companies acted with conscious disregard for user safety [15:50]. (TikTok and Snapchat settled their portions of the case shortly before trial began [08:06]).
5. Legal Eagle’s Mass Tort Announcement
Legal Eagle announced that his law firm, The Eagle Team, has partnered with leading litigation firms to bring mass tort claims against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube on behalf of individuals and families who suffered mental health harms from social media addiction [02:02].
-106
u/_Cpyder 17h ago
A guy who uses social media for a living.... is suing social media.
31
u/poornose 17h ago
Yea, imagine wanting how you make your living to be better. The utter audacity.
-4
31
u/SandysBurner 17h ago
5
u/Xsiah 16h ago edited 15h ago
He is not suing on his own behalf - a lawyer doesn't need to have standing in the case to represent his clients - that would be insane.
1
u/IamnotGenerikB 13h ago
And that comment isn’t saying anything about what is happening in the actual case. They are providing an argument against the dumb comment that was posted..
1
u/Xsiah 8h ago
The original comment is pointing out what they believe to be hypocrisy of Devin profiting from YouTube while stating that YouTube is bad (not my opinion, just a summary)
That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone having standing in the case. Standing is something that plaintiffs need in order to have a legitimate case - like you can't be a plaintiff on someone's behalf.
Devin is a lawyer - he isn't suing in the sense that he is doing this himself, he's the legal representation for his clients. Standing has nothing to do with him or his videos.
1
u/IamnotGenerikB 3h ago
And that last section you still brings up things that are in the video which is nothing to do with the comment. The person commenting isn’t saying Devin is a lawyer and isn’t suing for a client. They are commenting that this guy is suing what he makes money on and that’s all their comment is about. The standing link is in response to the dumb guys comment that again, has nothing to do with the video. I don’t know how that is so hard for you to understand and separate the video from the comment. If someone commented in this post saying their favorite food is mac and cheese, it would make sense for the responses to that comment to be about that comment and not about the video.
40
u/IamnotGenerikB 17h ago edited 17h ago
Can’t really sue for something you don’t use though. A guy who doesn’t use social media sueing social media is what would be dumb. It’s extremely common for people to sue their employer
3
u/Xsiah 16h ago
Did you watch the video? It's a class action for children harmed by the algorithms.
1
u/IamnotGenerikB 13h ago
Did you see the comment I was responding to? My comment has nothing to do with the video, it’s to do with the very dumb comment. Or maybe you meant to respond to them and not me. Looks like you are thinking the responses to the dumb comment are about the video? Seems weird to equate the two. It’s the first guy not understanding anything who is the problem. Others are just proving their own point wrong even if it’s not about the video
14
u/Serbian-American 17h ago
This actually might be the dumbest thing I’ve read here and I’m not joking.
Like the critical thinking isn’t there to even understand what a lawsuit is for
14
9
u/theirishembassy 16h ago
yeah. oh also, the lightbulb was invented by candlelight too!! imagine wanting to improve your life by utilizing the tools you have available?
3
1
1
1.1k
u/TheWarDoctor 17h ago
If he's going to sue them, he's going to need a good lawyer.