Meta and Google Found Liable in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
A Los Angeles jury has delivered a landmark verdict in a social media addiction case, finding Meta and Google liable for damages. The jury awarded US$3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70% and Google for 30%, plus an additional US$3 million in punitive damages. The case was brought by a woman known as KGM, who alleged that her compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube led to severe mental health issues.
Jury Deliberates for Nine Days in Precedent-Setting Case
The jury took nearly nine days to reach its decision in this high-profile trial. KGM, now 20 years old, claimed she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, developing patterns of compulsive use that included up to 16 hours a day on Instagram. She argued that design features like infinite scroll were deliberately crafted to addict children, contributing to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.
This case is the first of its kind to examine addiction as a cause of damage, but it is one of more than 20 bellwether trials scheduled to go to court soon. These test cases are used to gauge jury reactions and set legal precedents, potentially leading to a wave of similar litigation against big tech companies.
Internal Documents Reveal Corporate Knowledge of Addiction Risks
During the trial, KGM's lawyer, Mark Lanier, presented internal Meta studies, such as Project Myst, which allegedly found that children experiencing adverse effects were most likely to become addicted to Instagram. Lanier argued that Meta and Google built machines designed to addict children intentionally, comparing their tactics to those used by the tobacco and gambling industries.
The jury heard evidence that Meta's internal communications likened the platform's effects to pushing drugs and gambling, while a YouTube memo described viewer addiction as a goal. This corporate knowledge was cited as a key factor in establishing liability, challenging the companies' defences.
Meta and Google Mount Defence, Citing Section 230 Protections
Meta and Google centred part of their defence on Section 230 protections, arguing they cannot be held liable for content posted on their platforms. However, the judge instructed the jury that the way content is delivered is separate from the content itself, limiting the companies' ability to rely on these protections.
Meta's defence also highlighted KGM's family dynamics as responsible for her mental health struggles, suggesting social media may have provided a healthy outlet. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, stating he does not aim to maximise user time and expressing regret over delayed safety tools.
Verdict Could Have Far-Reaching Ripple Effects Globally
The verdict is set to have significant ripple effects, potentially marking a big tobacco moment for big tech. With thousands of similar cases pending, this ruling could pave the way for class actions and individual lawsuits worldwide. Meta and Google have announced plans to appeal, but the outcome may influence future litigation and regulatory approaches.
This case follows Meta's recent loss in a New Mexico trial, where the company was found guilty of concealing risks related to child exploitation and mental health harms. Together, these verdicts underscore growing legal scrutiny of social media platforms' design and their impact on users, particularly children.
As more bellwether trials approach, the legal landscape for big tech is evolving rapidly, with addiction and design features becoming central issues in courtrooms across the globe.
