Jury Finds Social Media Giants Liable for Addictive Products Targeting Children

A verdict has been reached in the landmark civil trial that accused social media giants of profiting from products designed to be dangerously addictive to children. "We have been notified that the jury has reached a verdict," an attorney for the plaintiff said in an email. The trial, which began last month in a Los Angeles County courtroom, included testimony from tech CEOs including Mark Zuckerberg and was the first in a consolidated group of cases brought against the company and others by more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts.

In Los Angeles, deliberations wrapped up after nearly 44 hours over the course of nine days. The jury had told Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl that they were having trouble coming to a consensus on one defendant. Because it is a civil trial, a unanimous verdict was not required; only nine of the 12 jurors needed to agree on each count to reach a decision.

Kaley started using YouTube at the age of 6, downloading the app on her iPod Touch to watch videos. She posted her first video when she was 8. A year later, she downloaded and began posting on Instagram, circumventing a guardrail her mom had tried to set up to block her from the app. She says she became addicted. Within several years, Kaley says she began cutting herself to cope with depression, one of a number of mental health challenges she claims were caused or exacerbated by an addiction to social media. At the center of the case was Kaley G.M., whose emotional testimony moved at least one juror to tears. She testified about her years of anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia, which she said stems from a social media addiction that began in adolescence.

Lead plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier told jurors that Meta and YouTube had "engineered addiction." He pointed to several internal documents from Meta and YouTube during his closing arguments that he said seemed to illustrate a clear internal understanding of the potentially addictive nature of their platforms. Lanier argued that if social media served as a coping mechanism for Kaley, it was a "maladaptive coping mechanism, like cigarettes" that had come to do just as much harm as other traumas in her life, altering her brain chemistry. Asking jurors to consider damages, Lanier advised them to think of one question: "What is a lost childhood worth?"

The trial hinged on the distinction of design versus content. The plaintiff charged that the platforms' design, which maximizes engagement for advertising revenues, is to blame for stimulating harmful addictive behaviors, while the platforms' defense rested in large part on the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which insulates online platforms from liability for the content displayed on their websites. Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl ruled that online bullying Kaley was subjected to qualifies as third-party content the companies cannot be held liable for, but ruled they can be held liable for their algorithms, notifications, likes, "infinite scroll," "autoplay," and beauty filters, which alter the appearance of a subject in photographs.

Defense attorneys for Meta consistently pointed to Kaley's "turbulent home life" and pre-existing mental health challenges as the true source of her struggles. "The evidence has shown just the opposite [of the plaintiff's claims]," said Meta attorney Paul Schmidt, arguing that the platforms often served as a coping mechanism rather than a cause. YouTube's counsel, Luis Li, emphasized that the platform is more akin to television than social media and highlighted safety features that the plaintiff's family reportedly did not utilize.

TikTok and Snap were also named defendants in the lawsuit, but both settled before the trial began. The verdict arrived just days after jurors in a separate trial in New Mexico held Meta liable for failing to protect children from online predators and sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram. That jury found Meta violated the state's consumer protection laws and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. Meta stated it disagrees with that verdict and plans to appeal.

With more than 2,000 pending lawsuits hinging on the jury's decision in the Los Angeles civil trial, the risks and implications are enormous for Meta and Google. The case, along with two others, was selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to play out. A large judgment, legal analysts have noted, may force major reforms and could even push some companies toward bankruptcy; a defense win would have emboldened platforms to continue fighting addiction claims nationwide. A win for the plaintiff was expected to trigger a wave of settlements or similar trials across the country.

Anyone who needs mental health support can call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org.