Mark Zuckerberg
AFP News

In a significant legal decision, a jury in Los Angeles ordered that two of the world's largest technology companies must pay millions after being held legally responsible for harm linked to social media addiction.

The verdict, delivered in a civil trial that has now become a test case for hundreds of similar lawsuits pending across the United States, centres on allegations that Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, and Google, owner of YouTube, designed their platforms in ways that contributed to a young woman's lifelong struggles with mental health.

Jury Finds Companies Negligent and Liable

After more than 40 hours of deliberations, the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury concluded that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their services, determining that addictive features such as endless feeds and autoplay played a 'substantial factor' in causing harm to the plaintiff, identified in court as Kaley G.M.

Jurors awarded Kaley $3 million in compensatory damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages after finding that the companies 'acted with malice, oppression, or fraud' in how they built and marketed their products. Meta is responsible for 70% of the award, with YouTube to pay the remaining 30%.

The verdict follows a trial that drew testimony from company executives and drew comparisons from legal experts to historic litigation against the tobacco industry, in which corporate responsibility for addictive products was scrutinised.

A Childhood Spent on Screens

The plaintiff, now 20 years old, testified that her exposure to social media began at a very young age — she started watching YouTube when she was six and joined Instagram at age nine. During the trial, jurors heard that she spent long periods on these platforms throughout her childhood, which her lawyers argued contributed to severe mental health struggles, including anxiety, depression, and body image disorders.

Kaley's legal team told the court that these platforms were designed with features intended to 'hook' young people and keep their attention for as long as possible. Infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and autoplay were cited as problematic by expert witnesses who testified during the six‑week trial.

Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that social media companies failed in their duty to warn users of potential dangers and were negligent in allowing minors unfettered access to products that could harm young minds.

Tech Giants Disagree With Verdict

Representatives for both Meta and YouTube issued statements rejecting the jury's conclusions and saying they planned to appeal.

A Meta spokesperson said that 'teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,' adding, 'We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.'

Similarly, Google put out a brief statement asserting that the case 'misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.'

These responses reflect a broader industry position that mental health challenges among young people are influenced by many factors and not solely attributable to the design of digital platforms.

Families and Campaigners Respond

Outside the courtroom, the verdict was met with emotional reactions from parents and campaign groups who have long criticised social media companies for the effects of their products on young users.

Supporters of the plaintiff celebrated the decision, hugging and applauding as the verdict emerged after nearly nine days of jury deliberations. Many in the crowd have children of their own who they say were similarly affected by social media use from a young age.

Critics of social media design features have seized on the ruling as a 'breaking point' in public sentiment, particularly as a series of similar lawsuits proceeds through courts nationwide.

Writer's pick