Newsletters
A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for harm caused to a young user in a landmark ruling that could reshape how courts handle social media addiction claims.
The decision marks the first time a case of this kind has gone to trial and resulted in a verdict against major technology companies, opening the door to thousands of similar lawsuits already moving through U.S. courts.
Jurors concluded that both companies were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and failed to warn users, particularly minors, about potential risks.
The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., was awarded around $6 million in total damages, including both compensatory and punitive amounts, with Meta held responsible for 70% of the harm and YouTube for 30%.
Meta and Google, YouTube’s parent company, said they disagree with the ruling and plan to appeal.
The case centered on whether social media platforms can be held legally responsible for addiction-like behavior and its consequences.
K.G.M., now 20, testified that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, spending long periods online. She said the experience contributed to anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia, and “really affected my self-worth,” she told NBC News.
Her legal team argued that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations were designed to keep young users engaged for extended periods. They described these systems as mechanisms intended to “hook” users, particularly children.
Jurors agreed that these design elements were a substantial factor in the harm suffered, even if they were not the sole cause.
Meta rejected that conclusion, stating that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” while Google said the case “misunderstands YouTube,” describing it as a streaming platform rather than a social media service.
The lawsuit is considered a bellwether case, meaning it serves as a test for thousands of similar claims filed across the United States by families, school districts, and state officials.
Legal experts say the ruling could influence how future courts assess whether platform design, rather than user-generated content, can create liability. This distinction is critical because tech companies have long relied on legal protections, particularly Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for content posted by users.
By focusing on product design instead of content, the case introduces a new legal pathway for holding platforms accountable.
“This is the first time in history a jury has heard testimony … that we believe proves these companies chose profits over children,” one of the plaintiff’s lawyers said, as reported by The New York Times.
Another attorney representing hundreds of similar cases said the verdict “establishes a framework” for future litigation and signals that juries are willing to hold technology companies responsible when harm is demonstrated.
The ruling comes as governments and regulators worldwide increase scrutiny of social media’s impact on children and adolescents.
Countries, including Australia, have already introduced restrictions on underage users, while others, such as the United Kingdom, are testing similar measures. In the United States, the surgeon general has previously called for warning labels on social media platforms due to links with mental health risks.
A separate jury in New Mexico this week also found Meta liable in a case involving child safety and exposure to harmful content, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
Analysts say the back-to-back verdicts reflect a broader shift in public and legal attitudes toward social media.
“Negative sentiment toward social media has been building for years, and now it’s finally boiled over,” said Mike Proulx, a research director at Forrester, as cited by BBC.
Despite the verdict, experts caution that the decision is only an early step in what could be a lengthy legal process.
Meta and Google are expected to appeal, and additional trials are scheduled in both state and federal courts. Legal analysts note that a single verdict is unlikely to trigger immediate changes to platform design or regulation.
However, if similar rulings follow, companies may face increasing pressure to modify features that critics argue encourage compulsive use, particularly among younger users.
For now, the Los Angeles decision stands as a significant moment in the debate over social media accountability, with potential consequences extending far beyond a single case.
Set as preferred source
Set as preferred source
1 min read
