A Los Angeles jury delivered a landmark verdict Wednesday. Jurors found Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that harm young people. The $6 million ruling will serve as a test case for thousands of similar lawsuits.
Meta faces $4.2 million in damages. Google owes $1.8 million. These amounts are relatively small for two of the world’s most valuable companies. Each spends over $100 billion annually on capital expenditures alone.
The Case That Started It All
The plaintiff, known in court only as Kaley, is now 20 years old. She was a minor when the case began. Kaley testified she became addicted to YouTube and Instagram at a young age. She blamed attention-grabbing design features like “infinite scroll,” which encourages users to keep viewing new posts endlessly.
The jury agreed with her arguments. Jurors found both companies negligent in how they designed their apps. They also determined Meta and Google failed to warn users about the platforms’ dangers.
“Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived,” the plaintiff’s lead counsel said in a statement.
Both companies plan to appeal. Spokespeople for Meta and Google said they disagree with the verdict. Despite the ruling, shares of both companies closed slightly higher Wednesday.
U.S. law strongly protects social media companies from liability for content on their platforms. However, the plaintiff focused on platform design rather than content itself. This legal strategy could have far-reaching implications.
Gil Luria, a technology analyst at D.A. Davidson, called the verdict a “setback” for both companies. “This process will likely get dragged out through future cases and appeals,” he said. “But eventually may cause these companies to put in consumer safeguards that may dampen growth.”
Snap and TikTok were also named as defendants originally. Both settled with the plaintiff before trial began. Neither company disclosed the terms.
A Shifting Battleground
Large technology companies have faced mounting criticism over child safety for the past decade. With Congress declining to pass comprehensive social media legislation, the debate has shifted to courts and state governments.
At least 20 states enacted laws on social media and children last year. These measures include cellphone restrictions in schools and age verification requirements for social media accounts. NetChoice, a trade group backed by Meta and Google, is currently fighting age verification laws in court.
Following Wednesday’s verdict, Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal issued statements. The Republican and Democrat called on Congress to pass legislation requiring social media companies to design platforms with child safety in mind.
More Trials Ahead
This verdict arrives amid a wave of similar litigation. A separate social media addiction case involving several states and school districts should go to trial this summer. That case will proceed in federal court in Oakland, California.
Another state trial begins in Los Angeles in July. Attorney Matthew Bergman, who leads the plaintiffs’ cases, confirmed that proceeding will involve Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat.
Meanwhile, a New Mexico jury reached its own verdict Tuesday. Jurors found Meta violated state law in a case brought by the state’s attorney general. That lawsuit accused Meta of misleading users about platform safety and enabling child sexual exploitation.
During the Los Angeles trial, plaintiff attorneys argued Meta and Google intentionally targeted children. They claimed both companies prioritized profit over safety.
Jurors reviewed internal documents showing how Meta and Google sought to attract younger users. They also heard testimony from executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who took the stand last month.
Zuckerberg defended company decisions when questioned about lifting a temporary ban on beauty filters. Some internal voices at Meta had warned these filters could harm teen girls.
“I felt like the evidence wasn’t clear enough to support limiting people’s expression,” Zuckerberg testified.
Meta’s defense team took a different approach. Attorneys emphasized the plaintiff’s difficult childhood as the true cause of her mental health struggles. YouTube argued Kaley’s usage of its platform was minimal.
Looking Forward
Questions about free speech and content moderation will likely feature prominently in any appeal. For now, the verdict stands as a warning shot to the technology industry. Courts may prove increasingly willing to hold companies accountable for design choices that affect young users.
