On this episode of the Self-Publishing with ALLi podcast, Dan Holloway reports on a major U.S. lawsuit awarding damages over social media addiction and a new UK trial restricting teen access to platforms. He also examines a key Supreme Court ruling in Sony vs. Cox that could influence AI copyright cases, and updates on the Anthropic settlement, where reduced legal fees may increase payouts for authors.
Listen to the Podcast: Social Media Lawsuits Grow; Supreme Court Ruling Shapes AI Copyright Debate
Show Notes
Jane Friedman’s AI and Publishing: FAQ for Writers
Sponsor
Self-Publishing News is proudly sponsored by PublishMe—helping indie authors succeed globally with expert translation, tailored marketing, and publishing support. From first draft to international launch, PublishMe ensures your book reaches readers everywhere. Visit publishme.me.
About the Host
Dan Holloway is a novelist, poet, and spoken word artist. He is the MC of the performance arts show The New Libertines, He competed at the National Poetry Slam final at the Royal Albert Hall. His latest collection, The Transparency of Sutures, is available on Kindle.
Thoughts or further questions on this post or any self-publishing issue?
If you’re an ALLi member, head over to the SelfPubConnect forum for support from our experienced community of indie authors, advisors, and our own ALLi team. Simply create an account (if you haven’t already) to request to join the forum and get going.
Non-members looking for more information can search our extensive archive of blog posts and podcast episodes packed with tips and advice at ALLi's Self-Publishing Advice Center.
Read the Transcript
Dan Holloway: Hello and welcome to what feels like yet another week, yet another virus — apologies for my voice again. This week has been a week about lawsuits. First of all, on the subject of law, I highly recommend again that you go and check out Jane Friedman's fabulous FAQ on everything writers need to know about AI and the law. As I mentioned last week, I've been spending a lot of time looking it over — very much worth reading, following the links through, and so on.
$3 Million Award Against Meta and YouTube
Our first lawsuit of the week is not an AI lawsuit — it's about social media. A woman in the US has been awarded $3 million in a lawsuit against Meta and YouTube, having already settled with Snap and TikTok before the case came to court. Her claim is that these firms knowingly created addictive platforms, and that the addiction resulting from her use of those platforms damaged her mental health when she was a teenager.
This is obviously a very hot-button topic, and it matters a lot to us as writers. Social media is a big part of how we reach readers, and much of the legislation and litigation we're seeing focuses on the teenage and young adult audience — which is exactly where BookTok, Instagram, and similar platforms really come into their own as a way of connecting with potential readers and of readers connecting with each other. We know that TikTok in particular has been credited with rescuing the physical book, and while some of that is subject to exaggeration, there is clearly something to it.
So this kind of lawsuit runs the risk of shutting off a very helpful channel. How addictive these platforms actually are is probably less controversial than questions of how much damage that addiction does in general versus in individual cases. This will not be the last lawsuit on the subject.
The UK Trials a Social Media Ban for Teenagers
That brings us to the second story of the week: the UK is trialing a ban on social media for teenagers. This follows other countries — most notably Australia, which recently banned social media for teenagers. The UK trial involves 300 teenagers and is testing various restrictions: curfews where no social media is allowed after a certain time; time limits, similar to the headlines this week about under-fives and screen time limits; and an outright ban for one group. This comes alongside a national consultation.
These are really important issues, and teenage mental health is a very serious matter — something I'm personally very passionate about, having had very poor mental health as a teenager. But the relationship between social media, screens, and mental health is a nuanced subject, and I very much hope this becomes a balanced conversation on a global scale. I hope the creative industries in the UK consider how they might respond to that consultation.
Sony vs. Cox: A Supreme Court Ruling with AI Implications
That brings us back to the law and AI. Two big rulings this week affect copyright law. The first is not strictly AI-related but has significant implications: Sony versus Cox Communications. Sony was suing Cox, an internet service provider, for a billion dollars, alleging that Cox was complicit in copyright infringement because it knew that people using its service were using copyright infringement tools. An earlier ruling had seemed to find Cox liable for its customers' behavior.
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling nine to zero. The ruling states that an internet service provider is not responsible for the behavior of those who use its platform. Justice Clarence Thomas's summary put it this way: a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.
People have immediately picked up on the potential parallels with tech companies and generative AI platforms. If a company knows its platform will be used to infringe copyright but is not responsible for that use, this ruling could have significant implications for AI-related copyright cases. The publishing industry is watching this closely and with some concern.
Anthropic Settlement: Legal Fees Reduced, Payout Per Title Rises
Our final legal story of the week goes back to the Anthropic settlement. In response to pushback from the presiding judge, the lawyers have reduced their claim for legal fees from $300 million to $187.5 million. This matters because the total payout in the case is a fixed pool of $1.5 billion, to be divided between rights holders and lawyers. The oft-cited figure of $3,000 per title was based on the assumption of the $300 million legal payout. Jane Friedman's newsletter suggests this reduction will lead to an increased potential payout per title of around $3,700 — a significant increase of about 23%. It is a zero-sum situation between rights holders and lawyers: the less lawyers claim, the more there is for rights holders. If you're part of the class action, this is very much something to be aware of.
With that, after a week dominated by legal news, I'll leave you and look forward to speaking to you again at the same time next week — after the big cultural event of the year here in Oxford: not the Oxford Literary Festival, which has just finished, but the Boat Race. That takes place on the Thames in London this weekend, and for all of us in Oxford — and needless to say, going in the other direction — that is the focus of our sporting year. I'll speak to you again next week. Thank you.
