Meta, YouTube liable in LA addiction trial

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has found Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube liable in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit brought by a 20-year-old California woman identified as K.G.M. or Kaley. Jurors concluded the companies were negligent in designing or operating Instagram and YouTube, and that this negligence was a substantial factor in harming the plaintiff.

The jury awarded exactly $3,000,000 in compensatory damages, assigning 70% of the responsibility to Meta and 30% to YouTube. The case, filed in 2023 and known as JCCP 5255, focused on alleged harms the plaintiff experienced during her preteen and teenage years after extensive use of the platforms.

Jurors determined that Meta was negligent in its design or operation of Instagram and failed to adequately warn users about dangers associated with using the platform. They reached similar conclusions about Google’s design or operation of YouTube and its failure to warn users about associated risks.

The jury further found that the conduct of both companies was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. According to trial reports, the plaintiff testified that she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9 and was on social media “all day long” as a child.

In returning its verdict, the jury affirmed findings that Meta and YouTube acted with malice, oppression, and fraud in their conduct. Because of that determination, proceedings now move to a second phase in which jurors will consider potential punitive damages after hearing additional evidence.

The plaintiffs centered their case on platform design rather than user content, a strategy that allowed them to sidestep arguments tied to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user posts. Jurors were explicitly instructed not to consider the content of posts and videos the plaintiff viewed.

Evidence and testimony highlighted design features such as infinite scrolling feeds, autoplay videos, algorithmic content recommendations, beauty filters, and push notifications. Lawyers argued these features were deliberately engineered to “hook” young users and contributed to the plaintiff’s alleged dangerous dependency and mental health problems.

Internal documents presented at trial, according to families following the case, described users in terms such as “customer lifetime value” and indicated that Meta understood how addictive its products could be for teens and was researching engagement among younger users.

Meta’s lawyers argued that Kaley’s mental health struggles stemmed from factors such as a disruptive home life and her parents’ divorce, and that her therapists had not identified social media as the cause. After the verdict, a Meta spokesperson said the company respectfully disagreed and was evaluating legal options.

Meta and YouTube also pointed to steps they said they had taken over the years to improve product safety. However, the plaintiffs were only required to show that social media use was a substantial factor in causing harm, not the sole cause.

TikTok and Snap (SNAP) were initially named as defendants in the Los Angeles case but settled with the plaintiff before trial; terms were not disclosed. The case is the first trial in a consolidated action involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts nationwide.

The verdict follows a separate New Mexico jury decision a day earlier that found Meta liable for violating state law in a child safety lawsuit and ordered the company to pay $375 million in penalties. Together, the rulings contribute to a growing wave of litigation by parents, state attorneys general, and school districts over alleged harms from social media platforms.