LOS ANGELES, A jury has found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media addiction case, ruling that the companies contributed to harmful and addictive behavior among young users.
The decision resulted in a $3 million damages award to the lead plaintiff, Kaley, identified in court documents as “KGM,” who claimed that early exposure to platforms like Instagram and YouTube negatively impacted her mental health.
According to the case, Kaley alleged that prolonged use of these platforms from a young age contributed to issues such as depression, body image concerns, and thoughts of self-harm.
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Other companies initially named in the complaint had settled before the trial began.
During the trial, Kaley testified about spending extended periods on social media and experiencing emotional responses tied to likes, comments, and notifications, which she said encouraged continued use.
Her legal team argued that the companies were aware of potential risks associated with their platforms but failed to take sufficient steps to protect younger users.
In response, representatives for Meta and YouTube stated that they disagree with the verdict and are reviewing their legal options. They also noted that the jury’s decision was not unanimous.
The case focused on two main issues: whether the platforms were designed in a way that encouraged addictive behavior and whether users were adequately warned about possible mental health risks.
The jury determined that Meta would be responsible for 70% of the damages, while YouTube would cover the remaining 30%. Jurors also indicated that additional punitive damages could be considered.
Legal discussions during the trial also referenced Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically shields technology companies from liability for user-generated content. However, this case centered on platform design rather than content itself.
Meta and YouTube argued that factors such as personal background, family environment, and existing challenges played a significant role in the plaintiff’s mental health, rather than platform use alone.
Mental health professionals who had worked with Kaley testified during the proceedings, noting a connection between her emotional state and her activity on social media platforms.
Kaley stated that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. She also said that she did not experience certain negative feelings related to body image before using these platforms.
Attorneys for the companies suggested that she may have used social media as a way to cope with existing personal challenges.
Legal experts say the outcome of the case could influence many similar lawsuits involving social media companies and their impact on young users.
Following the verdict, the plaintiff’s legal team described the decision as a significant step toward accountability in the technology industry.
In a separate case, a New Mexico jury recently ruled against Meta in another lawsuit involving harm to young users, ordering the company to pay substantial civil penalties.
Meta has indicated that it plans to appeal the decision as the legal process continues.
