Meta and YouTube Ordered to Pay Millions in Landmark Social Media Trial
In what is being hailed as a bellwether case that will influence the limits of social media platforms, a court in Los Angeles found Meta and YouTube liable on all charges brought against them by a teenage girl alleging that she suffered mental health issues after using the sites. Here is a closer look at the judgment and what it means for the future of social media, particularly as it relates to minors.
Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial Rules Against Meta and YouTube
A California jury ruled on Wednesday that Meta and YouTube were liable for creating products that triggered harmful and addictive behavior by young social media users. Judicial experts believe that the landmark decision handed down on Wednesday could set a legal precedent for other cases currently brought against some of the world's most influential social media companies.
The jury made a statement when it awarded $3 million in compensatory damages in addition to $3 million in punitive damages to the lead plaintiff. Identified in court filings simply by the initials "KGM," the now 20-year-old alleged that scrolling through YouTube and Instagram led to addictive use of the platforms. The plaintiff also said that the usage deepened her mental health problems, including body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal ideation.
Jurors ruled that both YouTube and Meta were negligent when rolling out their platforms, leading to the harm reported by KGM. The jury also ruled that the companies knew that their products could result in negative impacts on minors; however, they failed to take responsibility and warn users.
Meta will be responsible for 70% of the damages, compared to 30% allocated to YouTube. The jury also ruled that the social media leaders acted with "malice, oppression, or fraud," translating to the $3 million award in punitive damages. Meta will be on the hook for $2.1 million of those damages, with YouTube required to pay $900,000.
The decision came on the heels of a weekslong trial that featured testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri. Jurors deliberated for nine days before arriving at their verdict. The decision was not unanimous; however, a majority of the jurors voted to find both companies liable. KGM was in the courtroom when the decision was handed down.
A Meta spokesperson was quick to confirm that the company will appeal the decision. Google spokesperson Jose Castañeda also confirmed that the company plans to appeal, noting that the verdict is a misrepresentation of the YouTube platform. Google has long held that YouTube is a streaming platform rather than a social media site.
Details of the Allegations
KGM originally brought the case against Instagram and Facebook owner Meta, and Google-owned YouTube in 2023. Although TikTok and Snapchat parent Snap were also named in the original complaint, both of these companies settled before the trial began earlier this year.
The plaintiff testified on her behalf, describing how she would get an emotional rush when receiving likes and notifications from her social media accounts. KGM said that this rush made her addicted to her phone.
KGM's attorney, Mark Lanier, said after the verdict that "today, we finally have accountability." Lanier argued throughout the trial that Meta and YouTube knew that their products harmed children, but did not warn users of the potential health risks as they prioritized profits over all else.
In the past, social media companies were able to successfully deflect these types of allegations under the cover of a clause in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The Section 230 clause in this act gives protection to internet companies for third-party content hosted on their platforms.
However, this case focused on how the apps were designed and implemented rather than the actual content. As such, the clause did not offer sufficient protection to Google and Meta.
The defense denied that KGM's social media use was the trigger for her mental health issues. The companies pointed to a family history of mental health challenges, learning disabilities, and other issues at home and school as being the culprit for her struggles. Meta pointed out that none of KGM's therapists found social media to be the cause of her challenges. The legal team representing the companies also argued that KGM used social media as a coping mechanism for a problem that was already there.
Also this week, a New Mexico jury found Meta in violation of state child exploitation laws. The jury in this case ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after only deliberating for one day. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said that the company plans to also appeal this decision, as it remains "confident in our record of protecting teens online."
Regardless of how the appeals process plays out, legal experts are already chiming in that the decision could have significant implications on the thousands of related lawsuits working their way through the court system. In addition to influencing the current cases, the decision will certainly lead to more litigation. Several experts compared Wednesday's decision to the big tobacco cases that changed the trajectory of that industry decades ago.
Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.