Future fallout from ruling in landmark social media trial

A Los Angeles jury has found tech giants Google and Meta liable for damages in a landmark civil trial over youth social media addiction this week. Campaigners and parents who say social media use has harmed their children—sometimes leading to eating disorders, self-harm, or deaths by suicide—welcomed the decision outside the court. The case is the first of its kind but unlikely to be the last, as it is one of more than 20 “bellwether” trials expected to proceed soon—test cases designed to gauge jury reactions and establish legal precedent. 

As such, legal experts are highlighting the ruling could have far-reaching implications, telling an article by The Conversation that it may represent the tech industry's “big tobacco moment” in terms of regulations, with thousands of similar cases potentially following. 

The March 25 verdict determined that Instagram and YouTube are legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms. 

The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in California Superior Court documents only by her initials, KGM, brought the case. 

KGM testified in February that her early exposure to social media contributed to her addiction to the technology and worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts. She also said she developed body dysmorphia—a clinically diagnosed condition—as a result of her social media use. 

Opening statements began on February 9, and the jury deliberated for more than 40 hours over nine days. 

Google and Meta—parent company of Facebook and Instagram—were the remaining defendants after TikTok and Snap Inc (owner of Snapchat) settled their portions of the case out of court in late January. 

The court awarded $3 million in damages, assigning 70% of the responsibility to Meta and 30% to Google. The jury later added another $3 million in punitive damages.

Behind the addiction claim

KGM said she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, eventually developing compulsive usage patterns—including spending up to 16 hours in a single day on Instagram. She argued that platform design features contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.

Her case alleged that Meta and YouTube made deliberate design choices—such as “infinite scroll”—to make their platforms more addictive to children in order to increase profits. It further claimed the companies drew on behavioral and neurobiological techniques similar to those used in gambling and the cigarette industry to maximize youth engagement and advertising revenue.

The jury heard that Meta’s internal communications compared the platform’s effects to pushing drugs and gambling. It found that this internal awareness constituted the kind of corporate knowledge that supports liability.

In addition, a YouTube memo reportedly described “viewer addiction” as a goal, while an Instagram employee wrote that the company was staffed by “basically pushers.”

Mark Lanier, the lawyer representing the plaintiff, drew a direct parallel to tobacco litigation, arguing that where there is corporate knowledge, deliberate targeting, and public denial, liability follows.

Pathing the way for future cases

As the article notes, this is one of the first major cases against big tech to be decided by a jury—something companies have historically sought to avoid.

Until now, US courts have largely rejected claims focused on platform design.

This includes features such as infinite scroll and notification systems. The distinction between “platform design” and “content curation” has been central to how courts interpret First Amendment protections in such cases. 

The verdict in KGM’s case highlights potential limits to Section 230 protections. It is also the first major global case to examine addiction itself as a source of harm.

This marks Meta’s second major courtroom loss in the US this week. On March 24, a New Mexico jury found the company liable for concealing information about the risks of child sexual exploitation and the harmful effects of its platforms on children’s mental health.

In that case, the jury concluded Meta made false or misleading statements and engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that exploited children’s vulnerability and inexperience. It identified thousands of violations, resulting in a total penalty of $375 million.

According to The Conversation’s analysis, there is a strong case for these lawsuits to be combined into a class action in the US. The verdict could also serve as a foundation for both class actions and individual lawsuits globally.

By Nazrin Sadigova