Jury Finds Meta and YouTube Liable in Landmark Teen Social Media Addiction Case
WASHINGTON — A U.S. jury has found Meta and YouTube liable in a closely watched case over the impact of social media on young users, ruling that the companies’ platforms harmed a teenage user through addictive design features and failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks.
The verdict, delivered in a Los Angeles court, marks one of the most significant legal setbacks for major technology companies in recent years. Jurors concluded that Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google-owned YouTube were negligent in operating products that contributed to harm among young users.
The case was brought by a 20-year-old woman, identified in court as Kaley G.M., who testified that her use of the platforms began in early childhood and increasingly dominated her life. She said her social media use contributed to mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia.
The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, with jurors largely in agreement across multiple findings.
Kaley told the court she began watching YouTube videos at age six and created an Instagram account at nine, with her engagement intensifying over time. “I wanted to be on it all the time,” she said. “If I wasn’t on it, I felt like I was going to miss out on something.”
Her attorney, Mark Lanier, argued that the companies intentionally designed their platforms to maximize engagement among children. He told jurors the damages should serve to “punish a wrongdoing” and “to discourage similar conduct in the future.” He added, “They knew! They targeted the children.”
Attorneys for the companies countered that the plaintiff’s mental health struggles were influenced by a range of factors, including personal circumstances and bullying. Company executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, denied that their platforms were designed to be addictive.
Zuckerberg testified that Meta’s goal is to provide useful services rather than maximize time spent on its apps. “We used to give teams goals on time spent, and we don’t do that anymore because I don’t think that’s the best way to do it,” he said.
Meta said it plans to appeal the decision. “Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different,” said company spokesman Andy Stone.
YouTube also said it would challenge the ruling. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for Google.
The case is being closely watched as a potential test for thousands of similar lawsuits. More than 3,000 cases are pending in California courts targeting companies including Meta, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, with some platforms already settling claims before trial.
Legal experts say the verdict could shape how courts evaluate claims linking social media use to mental health harms, particularly among minors. It may also push companies toward settlements as they reassess legal risks.
The ruling follows another recent decision in New Mexico, where a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in a separate case involving child safety concerns.
Globally, scrutiny of social media’s effects on young users has intensified, with governments considering stricter safeguards such as age restrictions, parental controls, and limits on potentially addictive features. (Source: IANS)
