Court Finds Meta, YouTube Negligent in Landmark Addiction Case

This verdict marks the commencement of significant legal challenges for social media platforms.

In a pivotal trial addressing allegations of social media addiction, a jury concluded that Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube neglected to adequately inform users about the inherent risks associated with their platforms. The jury further determined that this negligence played a substantial role in the mental health struggles experienced by Kaley G.M., now 20, who had been a user of both Instagram and YouTube.

The jury mandated that both companies collectively pay $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta bearing 70 percent of this sum, as per juror responses provided by the plaintiff's legal representation, which includes Kaley. Furthermore, the jurors deemed punitive damages appropriate and will proceed to deliberate on the exact amount. Ten out of twelve jurors sided with the plaintiff on all decisive questions, including the negligence of Meta and YouTube and their substantial contribution to Kaley's harm, according to her legal team. Throughout the proceedings, Kaley and her therapist offered testimony detailing her battles with body dysmorphia and compulsive platform usage. Although two jurors supported the defense, a unanimous decision was not required for the verdict.

Francis Brennan, a spokesperson for Meta, issued a statement asserting, "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal." Brennan further commented, "Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

In a separate statement, Google spokesperson José Castañeda declared, "We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal." Castañeda added, "This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site."

Following a five-week trial at Los Angeles Superior Court, which included testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former employee whistleblowers, plaintiff Kaley G.M., and her therapist, the jury deliberated for nine days. The proceedings attracted significant media attention and parent advocates keen to highlight the potential dangers of social media. This case represents the initial "bellwether" lawsuit among several others advancing through the courthouse, all alleging similar harms against various social media corporations. Notably, Snap and TikTok had previously reached settlements with Kaley prior to the commencement of this trial.

The co-lead counsels representing plaintiffs in the California state cases, including Kaley's, hailed the outcome, stating, "Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day." They further emphasized the broader implications, adding, "But this verdict is bigger than one case. For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived."

Coincidentally, a distinct jury in New Mexico issued a verdict yesterday in a comparable lawsuit, finding that Meta had deliberately contravened state law by providing misleading information to consumers regarding the safety of its products.

Thousands of lawsuits initiated by individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general are currently organized into two separate complaint groups lodged in the Los Angeles state court and a federal court in Oakland, California. The precedent set by Kaley's case, along with forthcoming bellwether cases—the first of which is scheduled for July—will offer legal counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants crucial insights into potential jury rulings on complex product liability issues. Lawyers are particularly focused on how these outcomes might interact with Section 230, the legal provision that has historically shielded social media companies from liability for user-generated content and moderation decisions. Ultimately, these proceedings could culminate in a comprehensive global settlement, potentially necessitating modifications to the platforms themselves.