Name: Meta與YouTube在社群媒體成癮訴訟中被判負有過失責任！ (Meta and YouTube found liable of negligence in social media addiction trial)
Uploaded: 2026-03-26T23:04:06.000Z
Duration: 4 min 51 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

分詞構句

Breaking news out of Los Angeles: after nine days of deliberations, a jury has found Meta and YouTube negligent in their design and responsible for causing harm to a teen in a landmark decision.

洛杉磯傳出爆炸性新聞：經過九天的審議，陪審團裁定 Meta 和 YouTube 在設計上有疏失，並對一名青少年所受的傷害負有責任，這是個劃時代的判決。

The case centers on a 20-year-old woman's claim that her use of social media as a child addicted her to that technology, a jury agreeing, finding that both media giants both of those media giants liable,

此案聚焦於一名20歲女子聲稱，她兒時使用社群媒體讓她沉迷於該科技，陪審團同意此說法，裁定這兩家媒體巨頭都應負連帶責任，

and awarding the plaintiff, who's known as KGM, $3 million in damages.

並判給化名 KGM 的原告300萬美元損害賠償。

The jury is now back deliberating to decide what, if any, punitive damages should also be awarded.

陪審團現正重新審議，以決定是否應判處懲罰性損害賠償。

Let's get right to NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung.

讓我們直接連線 NBC 新聞商業與數據記者 Brian Chung。

NBC News legal analyst Misty Maris joins us as well.

NBC 新聞法律分析師 Misty Maris 也將加入我們。

Both of them have been following this case really closely.

What ultimately did the jurors decide here, and have we heard anything from either company, Meta or YouTube?

陪審團最終的決定是什麼？我們有聽聞 Meta 或 YouTube 這兩家公司有任何回應嗎？

Well, what the jury decided here is that, in the case of both YouTube and Meta, that they were negligent in the way that they designed their apps, that that led to harm in this particular 20-year-old individual identified as Kayleigh GM,

嗯，陪審團在這裡的決定是，針對 YouTube 和 Meta 這兩家公司，它們在設計應用程式的方式上存在疏忽，這對一位名叫 Kayleigh GM 的 20 歲個人造成了傷害，

And for that reason, that also harmed this particular plaintiff.

是以，這也對這位原告造成了傷害。

As you point out, this is a landmark trial because this could open up the floodgates for the over 1,500 other cases that are working their way through the legal system, with the jury here saying, yeah, these companies are liable and they do need to pay up.

正如你所指出的，這是一場具有里程碑意義的審判，因為這可能會為其他 1,500 多起正在走法律程序的案件打開大門，陪審團在這裡表示，是的，這些公司是有責任的，而且它們確實需要賠償。

You wonder if all these other cases are going to lead to the similar outcome as well.

你會想知道，所有這些其他案件是否也會導致類似的結果。

I should point out that we did get statements from both companies in just the last few hours, Meta saying, quote, "They respectfully disagree with the verdict and evaluating their legal options," whereas YouTube saying outright that they disagree with the verdict and that they plan to appeal.

我應該指出，我們在過去幾個小時內確實收到了兩家公司的聲明，Meta 表示，他們「尊重地不同意判決，並正在評估他們的法律選擇」，而 YouTube 則明確表示他們不同意判決，並計劃上訴。

And they add that they don't see themselves as a social media site.

他們還補充說，他們不認為自己是社群媒體網站。

So you imagine that in the appeal process, that's going to come up.

所以你可以想像，在上訴過程中，這一點會被提出來。

But again, this is starting the kind of long legal battle that could unfold from here, but

但再次強調，這開啟了從這裡可能展開的漫長法律鬥爭，

The jury, that's the top line, finding both of these companies negligent.

陪審團，這是重點，判定這兩家公司都有疏失。

44 hours of deliberations before the jury came back with it.

經過 44 小時的審議，陪審團才做出裁決。

Are you surprised that it took that long?

你對花了這麼久的時間感到驚訝嗎？

And legally speaking, what happened here?

從法律上來說，這裡發生了什麼事？

So the jury really had a lot to grapple with because they had to treat both defendants as if it were two completely separate trials.

所以陪審團真的有很多事情要處理，因為他們必須將兩位被告視為兩個完全獨立的審判。

So go through the analysis for Meta and YouTube.

所以我們來分析一下 Meta 和 YouTube 的情況。

And as Brian pointed out, the defenses were a bit different with both.

而且正如 Brian 指出的，兩者的辯護策略有點不同。

So they had to go through that verdict sheet and decide on liability.

所以他們必須仔細審閱判決書，並決定責任歸屬。

And they weren't really given any guidance.

而且他們真的沒有得到任何指導。

They were just told by the plaintiff's attorney, if you award damages, what is the loss of a childhood worth, right?

原告律師只是告訴他們，如果你們判決損害賠償，童年的損失值多少錢，對吧？

So they also had to come to a consensus on that number and then allocate that number between the two,

所以他們也必須就這個數字達成共識，然後將這個數字分配給兩者，

and then take that step further to decide whether punitives were appropriate under the circumstances, which they, in fact, did.

然後再進一步決定在這種情況下是否適合懲罰性賠償，而他們確實這麼做了。

Oh, they did decide on the punitive damages?

哦，他們確實決定了懲罰性賠償？

But we know that the jury decided that the plaintiffs had gotten to that standard of whether or not the defendants acted with malice.

但我們知道陪審團裁定原告已經達到了被告是否惡意行事的標準。

So this is a really, really high level by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiffs have to prove to be eligible for punitive damages.

所以這是一個非常、非常高的標準，需要以明確且令人信服的證據來證明，原告才能獲得懲罰性賠償。

So this is really a tremendous consequence, though.

所以這確實是一個重大的後果。

It's a punishment, essentially, Brian, right?

基本上，這是一種懲罰，對吧？

But can we talk also about how this comes on the heels of another trial that was just decided yesterday?

但我們也可以聊聊，這件事發生在昨天剛有另一個審判結果的緊接著嗎？

And in that case, the verdict was that Meta, just Meta, they were a singular defendant in the case, needed to pay $375 million in civil penalties to young teens and children in that state.

在那起案件中，判決是 Meta，只有 Meta，他們是該案的唯一被告，需要向該州的青少年和兒童支付 3.75 億美元的民事罰款。

Now, there were some differences between that New Mexico case and the Los Angeles case, most notably that in the New Mexico case, it was the state going after Meta.

現在，新墨西哥州的案件和洛杉磯的案件之間確實存在一些差異，最值得注意的是，在新墨西哥州的案件中，是該州起訴 Meta。

And they also alleged that there were not protections in place being provided by Instagram to stop young kids and children from being targeted by sexual predators on the app as well.

他們也指控 Instagram 沒有設置足夠的保護措施，來防止年輕兒童在應用程式上被性掠食者盯上。

Now, I know a lot of people are thinking, $375 million in New Mexico, only $3 million in Los Angeles.

很多人可能會想，新墨西哥州是 3.75 億美元，而洛杉磯只有 300 萬美元。

But again, Los Angeles is about a single plaintiff.

但再說一次，洛杉磯的案件是關於單一原告。

That $375 million is just about children.

那 3.75 億美元是專門針對兒童的。

And I should point out, similarly to LA, there's going to be a separate hearing.

而且我必須指出，跟洛杉磯的案件一樣，也會有另一場獨立的聽證會。

It's going to happen a long time from now, in May.

這場聽證會會在很久之後，也就是五月舉行。

But that's going to be final claims where there could also be punitive damages as well.

但那將是最終的賠償請求，屆時也可能會有懲罰性損害賠償。

So again, this is not the final number that these companies are going to have to pay.

所以再說一次，這不是這些公司最終需要支付的金額。

Although I should point out, these are companies with massive coffers.

雖然我應該指出，這些公司擁有龐大的資金。

And I think that's actually the argument that we're hearing right now in this punitive stage of the LA trial, as the plaintiff's attorney is trying to appeal against the jury for potentially more money.

我認為這也是我們現在在洛杉磯審判的懲罰性階段所聽到的論點，因為原告律師正試圖說服陪審團給予更多賠償。

And we could talk about it, if that's right.

如果可以的話，我們可以聊聊。

Thank you both, Brian Chung, Misty Maris, appreciate you, as always.

謝謝你們，Brian Chung 和 Misty Maris，一如既往地感謝你們。

And remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.

記得，在 NBC News App 上隨時掌握最新頭條和熱門新聞，或是在我們的 YouTube 頻道上收看直播。