Meta and YouTube were held responsible in a groundbreaking trial concerning social media addiction.

      A jury in Los Angeles has ruled that Meta and Google are liable for deliberately creating addictive social media platforms that negatively impacted a young woman's mental health, awarding her $3 million in compensatory damages. This marks the first trial verdict of this nature in the U.S. The verdict, announced on Wednesday after a five-week trial, determined that Meta was responsible for 70% of the reported harm, while YouTube accounted for the remaining 30%. The amount for punitive damages, which could reach up to $30 million according to California law, is yet to be decided.

      The plaintiff, named Kaley, is now 20 years old. She testified that she started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at nine, facing no age verification barriers on either platform. Kaley recounted spending entire days on social media as a child, isolating herself from her family, and battling anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia—an obsession with perceived imperfections in her appearance. She noted that she began using Instagram filters that changed her facial features almost immediately after joining the platform.

      This verdict came the day after another jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million for breaching state consumer protection laws by failing to safeguard children from sexual predators on its platforms. Together, these consecutive rulings signify the first instance in which juries have held social media companies financially accountable for the damage their products inflict on young users.

      The jury's findings

      Kaley’s lawyers argued that features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmically generated content feeds were intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and that Meta's internal growth aims specifically targeted young users, who are likely to stay on the platform longer. They presented evidence from former Meta executives and the company’s internal research demonstrating that Meta was aware that children under 13 were using its platforms and that its products were linked to adverse mental health outcomes in teenagers.

      During his testimony to the jury in February, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem but stated he “always wished” the company had acted more swiftly to identify underage users. He asserted that Meta had evolved “in the right direction over time.” Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, was shown data indicating that Kaley's longest single-day session on the platform was 16 hours. He refused to label it as addiction, instead calling it “problematic.”

      Meta's lawyers maintained that while Kaley faced genuine mental health challenges, her use of Instagram was not the cause or a substantial contributing factor. Meta expressed that it “respectfully disagrees with the verdict” and is considering its legal options. Google described the case as mischaracterizing YouTube, stating it is “a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” and announced plans to appeal.

      The context of the case

      Kaley’s case is the first among over 1,500 similar lawsuits consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation against Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok. Snap and TikTok reached undisclosed settlements with Kaley prior to the trial, leaving Meta and Google to contest the case in court.

      The verdict in New Mexico, while legally distinct, echoed similar claims: that Meta was aware its platforms put children at risk and chose not to take action. This case stemmed from a 2023 undercover investigation by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who created a fictitious profile of a 13-year-old girl and quickly received sexually explicit material and contact from predators. The jury found Meta liable on all counts for willfully engaging in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices.

      A federal trial is scheduled for June in California, and there are hundreds of additional lawsuits from school districts and state attorneys general awaiting trial. Legal experts have drawn parallels between this litigation wave and the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, which led to a $206 billion settlement and fundamentally changed how cigarettes were marketed and regulated in the U.S.

      What changes and what remains unchanged

      The immediate financial impact on Meta and Google is minimal. A $3 million compensatory award, and even potential punitive damages climbing to $30 million, is insignificant for companies with a combined market capitalization exceeding $3 trillion. The $375 million verdict from New Mexico is larger but still constitutes only a small portion of a single quarter's revenue for Meta.

      The significance lies in its precedent rather than its financial implications. The Los Angeles verdict establishes that a jury of ordinary citizens, when presented with internal documents, expert testimonies, and the companies’ own research, determined that social media platforms were purposely designed to be addictive, resulting in measurable harm to a specific individual. This finding will be referenced in all 1,500 pending cases, shifting the burden: Meta and Google will now approach each upcoming trial not as defendants encountering new claims but as companies already found liable by a jury.

      Mike Proulx, a research director at Forrester, characterized the verdicts as a “breaking point” between social media companies and the public