Meta, YouTube found liable in landmark social media addiction case

A Los Angeles jury has delivered a landmark ruling against Meta Platforms and YouTube, finding that the companies designed platforms that contributed to a young woman’s childhood addiction to social media and harmed her mental health.

The 20-year-old plaintiff, identified as Kaley, was awarded a total of $6 million in damages after jurors concluded the companies acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

The award includes $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Jurors apportioned responsibility between the companies, assigning 70% to Meta and 30% to YouTube.

The case is widely seen as a potential turning point for the tech industry, with thousands of similar lawsuits pending in US courts. “The reason why this case is consequential is not the individual case, but the way that it’s a bellwether test case,” Sarah Kreps, a professor at Cornell University, told the Associated Press.

Kaley testified that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, spending “all day long” on social media as a child. She told the court her usage led her to withdraw from family life and contributed to anxiety, depression and body image issues. “I stopped engaging with family because I was spending all my time on social media,” she said.

Her lawyers argued that both platforms were deliberately engineered as “addiction machines,” pointing to features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and notifications designed to keep young users engaged. They also argued that Meta actively sought to attract younger users because they were more likely to remain on the platform long term.

The jury agreed that both companies were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm. Jurors also found that the companies knew their platforms could be dangerous for minors but failed to adequately warn users, AP reported.

Far-reaching Implications

Meta and YouTube both rejected the verdict and said they would appeal.

Meta said “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” while a Google spokesperson argued the case mischaracterized YouTube as a social media platform, describing it instead as “a responsibly built streaming platform.”

The verdict follows a separate ruling in New Mexico a day earlier that also found Meta liable for exposing children to harmful content, underscoring growing legal pressure on social media firms.

Legal experts say the California case could have far-reaching implications. Peter Ormerod, a law professor at Villanova University, described the ruling as “a momentous development” but cautioned it is “one step in a much longer saga,” AP reported.

For many observers, the back-to-back verdicts signal a broader shift. “Negative sentiment toward social media has been building for years, and now it’s finally boiled over,” Mike Proulx of Forrester was quoted by the BBC as saying.

Another trial targeting social media companies’ impact on children is expected to begin in California in June.