California Jury Awards $3M in Historic Social Media Addiction Case

A California jury has awarded $3 million to a young woman in the first successful lawsuit holding social media companies responsible for childhood addiction. The landmark verdict found Meta and YouTube negligent in their platform designs, with more punitive damages to come.

LOS ANGELES — In a groundbreaking legal victory, a California jury has held Meta and YouTube accountable for causing harm to a young user, awarding $3 million in damages in what marks the first successful lawsuit of its kind against major social media platforms.

Following more than 40 hours of jury deliberations spanning nine days, the panel concluded that both companies showed negligence in how they designed and operated their platforms. The jurors determined this negligence significantly contributed to harming the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claims childhood social media use created an addiction and worsened her mental health conditions. This represents the second adverse ruling against Meta this week, following a New Mexico jury’s decision that the company damages children’s mental health and safety in violation of state regulations.

The financial award is expected to increase substantially since jurors found the companies operated with malice, oppression or fraud. This finding triggers a separate phase where the jury will consider additional punitive damages after reviewing new evidence.

The jury concluded that Meta and YouTube understood their platform designs posed dangers to minors or likely would cause harm when used by children. Additionally, the platforms inadequately warned users about these risks, which contributed further to the plaintiff’s injuries, according to the verdict.

Nine of the twelve jurors needed to agree on each claim against the defendants. Two jurors consistently opposed the majority of ten regarding whether the technology companies should face liability.

The panel assigned greater blame to Meta for harming the plaintiff, identified by her initials KGM. Meta received 70% of the responsibility while YouTube was assigned the remaining 30%.

Meta and Google’s YouTube remained as the final defendants after TikTok and Snap reached settlements prior to trial proceedings.

During approximately one month of testimony and evidence presentation, jurors heard from KGM, referred to as Kaley by her legal team, along with Meta executives Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan did not provide testimony.

Kaley testified that she started using YouTube when she was 6 years old and Instagram at age 9, telling jurors she spent time on social media “all day long” during her childhood.

Kaley’s legal team, headed by attorney Mark Lanier, needed to demonstrate that each defendant’s negligence substantially contributed to causing her harm. They highlighted specific design elements they claimed were created to “hook” young users, including endless content feeds, automatic video playback, and push notifications.

Jurors received instructions to disregard the actual content of posts and videos Kaley viewed on the platforms. This limitation exists because technology companies receive legal protection from user-generated content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta’s defense consistently maintained that Kaley experienced mental health difficulties independent of her social media usage, frequently referencing her unstable family situation. Following closing arguments, Meta stated that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her psychological issues. However, the plaintiffs only needed to prove social media served as a “substantial factor” in her harm, not the primary cause.

YouTube’s strategy focused less on Kaley’s medical history and mental health background, instead emphasizing her YouTube usage patterns and the platform’s characteristics. They contended that YouTube functions as a video platform similar to television rather than social media, highlighting her decreased YouTube usage over time. According to company data, she averaged approximately one minute daily watching YouTube Shorts since its launch. YouTube Shorts, introduced in 2020, features short-form vertical videos with the “infinite scroll” functionality that plaintiffs argued creates addiction.

Defense attorneys for both platforms repeatedly emphasized the safety tools and controls each company provides for users to monitor and adjust their usage.

This case serves as a bellwether trial, randomly chosen alongside several others, meaning its results could influence the resolution of thousands of similar lawsuits filed against social media companies.

Laura Marquez-Garrett, an attorney with the Social Media Victims Law Center representing Kaley, described this trial as “a vehicle, not an outcome” during deliberations.

“This case is historic no matter what happens because it was the first,” Marquez-Garrett stated, highlighting the significance of making Meta and Google’s internal documents publicly available.

Marquez-Garrett criticized social media companies, saying they are “not taking the cancerous talcum powder off the shelves,” apparently referencing a previous case handled by Lanier’s firm that resulted in a multi-billion-dollar judgment. “And they’re not going to because they’re making too much money killing kids.”

The Social Media Victims Law Center and parents who connect their children’s deaths or injuries to social media platforms will continue their legal battles, Marquez-Garrett said, wearing multiple rubber wristbands honoring victims that she has kept on since the trial started.

This trial represents one of several legal challenges social media companies face this year and beyond. These cases culminate years of examination regarding platform child safety and whether companies deliberately make their services addictive while promoting content that contributes to depression, eating disorders, or suicide.

Some legal experts compare this situation to previous cases against tobacco and opioid industries, with plaintiffs hoping social media platforms will face similar consequences as cigarette manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, and distributors.