A California jury just made Big Tech pay.
In a decision that legal experts are calling a “Big Tobacco” moment for Silicon Valley, a Los Angeles jury ruled on Wednesday that Meta and YouTube are legally responsible for the mental health struggles of a young woman who became addicted to their platforms as a child.
The trial, which has been closely watched by tech giants and parents alike, ended with a $3 million award for compensatory damages. The jury found that the tech companies were negligent and failed to warn users about the inherent dangers of their apps.
The plaintiff, a 20-year-old identified as Kaley (or K.G.M.), alleged that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. She testified that the platforms fueled a downward spiral into body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts.
According to the BBC, Kaley told the court: “I stopped engaging with family because I was spending all my time on social media.”
Kaley sued Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok in 2023. Snap and TikTok settled before the trial began on undisclosed terms. Meta and YouTube chose to fight it out in court. They lost.
The financial burden is split based on the jury’s assessment of responsibility:
- Meta: Held 70% liable ($2.1 million).
- YouTube: Held 30% liable ($900,000).
The digital casino strategy
What makes this case unique is how Kaley’s legal team bypassed the usual legal protections that shield tech companies. Typically, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects platforms from being sued over what users post. However, this trial focused on the design of the apps, the “architecture” rather than the content.
Lawyers argued that features like “infinite scroll,” “autoplay,” and “beauty filters” were engineered to keep children hooked. NPR reports that plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier described the strategy during the trial: “How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction.”
The jury also saw internal Meta documents. One memo noted that “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens,” according to NPR.
The six-week trial featured rare appearances from the companies’ executives. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri both took the stand to defend their products.
When confronted with the idea that the apps are addictive, Mosseri pushed back. According to CNBC, he characterized heavy usage as “problematic” rather than an addiction. Zuckerberg also defended the company’s motives, stating per NPR: “If people feel like they’re not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?”
The defense and an industry in turmoil
Both Meta and Google (which owns YouTube) have expressed strong disagreement with the verdict. “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” a Meta spokesperson said, per CNBC.
Google, meanwhile, plans to fight the ruling on the grounds that YouTube shouldn’t even be in the same category as Instagram. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said, “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
Wednesday’s ruling landed just 24 hours after a separate jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico, found Meta liable for violating state consumer protection laws by failing to protect children from sexual predators on its platforms. In that case, Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages. The company said it would appeal.
While $3 million is a small amount for companies worth trillions, the “bellwether” nature of this case means it could set the stage for over 1,500 similar lawsuits waiting in the wings. The court will soon enter a second phase to determine punitive damages, which are intended to punish the companies and could significantly increase the final payout.
For more on how Meta’s platforms have faced scrutiny over addictive design, check out this deep dive into Mark Zuckerberg’s Instagram addiction trial.
Read the full article here
