A jury has found both Meta and YouTube liable in a first of its kind lawsuit seeking to hold social media platforms responsible for harm to children using their services, awarding the plaintiff US$3 million in damages.
After more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, California jurors decided Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms. They also ruled that each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, a 20 year old woman who says her childhood use of social media addicted her to the technology and worsened her mental health struggles.
This is the second verdict this week against Meta, following a jury in New Mexico that determined the company harms children’s mental health and safety, in violation of state law. The multimillion dollar award is set to grow after jurors found the companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud, triggering a new phase to consider punitive damages.
Both Meta and YouTube issued statements rejecting the verdict and vowing to explore legal options, including appeals. Google spokesman Jose Castañeda said the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site”.
Jurors found Meta and YouTube knew the design or operation of their platforms was dangerous, or likely to be dangerous, when used by minors. They also said the companies failed to adequately warn of the risks, further contributing to the plaintiff’s harm. Only nine of the 12 jurors needed to agree on each claim; two consistently dissented.
The jury apportioned 70 per cent of responsibility to Meta and 30 per cent to YouTube. TikTok and Snap had settled before trial, leaving Meta and Google owned YouTube as the remaining defendants.
Jurors heard about a month of arguments, testimony and evidence, including from the plaintiff – identified by her initials KGM, or Kaley – and Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri. YouTube’s chief executive Neal Mohan did not testify. Kaley said she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and was on social media “all day long” as a child.
Her lawyers, led by Mark Lanier, argued that design features such as infinite feeds, autoplay and notifications were intended to “hook” young users. Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of posts or videos, as Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act shields tech companies from liability for user generated content.
Meta countered that Kaley’s mental health struggles stemmed from her turbulent home life, noting that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause”. The plaintiffs, however, only had to prove social media was a “substantial factor” in her harm. YouTube argued it is a video platform akin to television, not social media, and pointed to Kaley’s declining use over time. Data showed she averaged about one minute a day on YouTube Shorts since its 2020 launch.
Both companies highlighted safety features and parental controls.
The case is one of several designated as bellwether trials, meaning its outcome could shape thousands of similar lawsuits against social media firms.
While both the Los Angeles case and the New Mexico case focused on harm to children, they differed in scope. New Mexico’s suit, filed by Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2023, relied on investigators posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s responses, with jurors asked to decide if Meta violated consumer protection law.
The Los Angeles case centred on a single plaintiff against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, alleging that platform design features were addictive for young users. With thousands of families pursuing similar claims, Kaley and a handful of others have been selected for bellwether trials – test cases that could lead to broader settlements reminiscent of Big Tobacco and opioid litigation.
AP
