YouTube challenges the ruling regarding its social media addiction.

      YouTube has joined Meta in appealing a significant ruling regarding social media addiction, contending that it is not a social media platform.

      In a unique defense against accusations that it contributed to a child's addiction to its app, YouTube asserts that it does not qualify as a social media platform at all. The video service, owned by Google, has filed an appeal in a notable case related to social media addiction in Los Angeles, according to a report from the Associated Press. This filing took place on Monday, just days after Meta filed a similar appeal.

      The lawsuit involved a 20-year-old woman referred to in court as Kaley, who claimed she became addicted to social media as a child, which negatively affected her mental health. In March, a jury concluded that the negligence of both YouTube and Meta significantly contributed to her harm. As a result, she was awarded $3 million in damages, along with a recommendation for an additional $3 million in punitive damages. The trial judge, Carolyn Kuhl, subsequently denied requests from both companies for a retrial.

      YouTube argued throughout the five-week trial that its service—which focuses on video sharing and streaming—does not fall into the same category as social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok. Both companies pointed to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides legal protection for platforms against liability for user-generated content. However, the plaintiff's lawyers bypassed this argument, concentrating instead on certain design elements, such as autoplay, that they argued encourage prolonged and less intentional user engagement.

      Google characterized the appeals as standard procedure. Spokesperson José Castañeda stated that these motions are typical for advancing the case. Kaley’s lead attorney, Mark Lanier, anticipates that the appellate court will uphold the original verdict.

      The implications of this case extend beyond a single lawsuit, as Kaley’s case marks the first of its kind and could influence many similar claims suggesting that social media companies intentionally inflict harm on users. Prior to the trial, TikTok and Snap chose to settle out of court.

      The financial repercussions could be substantial. Lawyers have drawn parallels between the current situation and the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s. For Meta, the child-safety lawsuits might incur costs surpassing its extensive AI budget, while YouTube currently prefers to argue that it shouldn’t be categorized as a social media platform at all.