Jury finds Instagram and YouTube liable in landmark social media addiction trial
A woman aged 20 had said her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated her mental health struggles.
Meta and YouTube must pay millions in damages to a 20-year-old woman after a jury in the US decided the social media giant and video streamer designed their platforms to hook young users without concern for their wellbeing.
The California jury’s decision in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm.
The plaintiff, known by her initials KGM, testified at trial that she became addicted to social media as a child and that this addiction exacerbated her mental health struggles.
After 40 hours of deliberations, a majority of jurors agreed and awarded her three million dollars (£2.2 million) in damages.
Jurors later recommended an additional three million dollars in punitive damages after deciding the companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud in harming children with their platform.
The judge in the case has final say over the amount of damages that will be awarded to the plaintiff.
It is the second verdict against Meta this week, after a jury in New Mexico determined the company harms children’s mental health and safety, in violation of state law.
Meta and Google-owned YouTube issued statements disagreeing with the verdict and vowed to explore their legal options, which includes appeals.
Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the verdict misrepresents YouTube “which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site”.
A Meta spokesperson said teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app”.
The jury determined that Meta and YouTube knew the design or operation of their platforms was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor.
Jurors also agreed that the platforms failed to adequately warn of that danger, further contributing to the plaintiff’s harm.
Only nine of the 12 jurors had to agree on each claim against each defendant.
Two jurors consistently disagreed with the other 10 on whether the companies should be held liable.
The jurors also decided Meta held more responsibility for harm to the plaintiff, who has been identified by her initials KGM.
The jury said Meta shouldered 70% of the responsibility while YouTube bore the remaining 30%.
That division was reflected in the breakdown of the three million dollars in punitive damages, with the jury deciding on 2.1 million dollars from Meta and 900,000 dollars from YouTube.
Meta and YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case.
TikTok and Snap settled before the trial began.
Jurors listened to about a month of lawyers’ arguments, testimony and evidence, and they heard from KGM, or Kaley as her lawyers called her during the trial, as well as Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri.
YouTube’s chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to give evidence.
Kaley says she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine.
She told the jury she was on social media “all day long” as a child.
Lawyers representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the respective defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley’s harm.
They pointed to specific design features they said are designed to “hook” young users, such as the “infinite” nature of feeds that allowed for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and notifications.
The jurors were told not to take into account the content of the posts and videos Kaley viewed because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for posted content, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Meta consistently argued that Kaley’s struggles with mental health were not connected to her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life.
Meta also said “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues.
But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles – only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.
YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of YouTube and the nature of the platform.
It argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform akin to television, and pointed to her declining YouTube use as she got older.
According to its data, she spent about one minute a day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception.
YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, delivers short-form, vertical videos with the “infinite scroll” feature that plaintiffs argued was addictive.
Lawyers representing both platforms also consistently pointed to the safety features and guardrails they each have available for people to monitor and customise their use.
The case, along with several others, has been randomly selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits filed against social media companies play out.
While the cases in Los Angeles and New Mexico both focused on the harms inflicted on children, there were key differences between the two.
New Mexico’s lawsuit was filed by state attorney general Raul Torrez in 2023.
State investigators built their case by posing as children on social media, then documenting sexual solicitations they received as well as Meta’s response.
The jury was asked to determine if Meta violated New Mexico’s consumer protection law.
The Los Angeles case was filed by a single plaintiff against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap.
After the latter two settled, she argued that Meta and YouTube were addictive by design, and that they especially target young users.
