A California jury has delivered a historic verdict, ordering Meta and YouTube to pay $3 million to a young woman who claims their platforms caused her addiction and mental health problems during childhood.
Following more than 40 hours of jury deliberations spanning nine days, the panel determined that both Meta and YouTube showed negligence in how they designed and operated their platforms. The jurors concluded that this negligence significantly contributed to harming the 20-year-old plaintiff, who began using these services as a child. This marks 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 law.
The financial award is expected to increase substantially, as jurors determined both companies acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. This finding means additional evidence will be presented before the jury reconvenes to determine punitive damages.
According to the jury’s findings, both Meta and YouTube understood their platforms posed dangers to minors during design and operation phases. The companies also failed to provide sufficient warnings about these risks, which contributed further to the plaintiff’s harm.
The verdict required agreement from nine of the 12 jurors on each claim against both defendants. Two jurors consistently opposed the other 10 regarding whether the technology companies should face liability.
Jurors assigned greater blame to Meta, determining the company bears 70% responsibility for the plaintiff’s harm, while YouTube carries the remaining 30%. The plaintiff has been identified by her initials KGM throughout the proceedings.
Meta and Google-owned YouTube remained as the final defendants after TikTok and Snap reached settlements before trial proceedings commenced.
During approximately one month of testimony, jurors heard from the plaintiff, known as Kaley during trial proceedings, along with Meta executives Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan did not provide testimony.
Kaley testified that she started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, telling jurors she spent time on social media “all day long” throughout her childhood.
The plaintiff’s legal team, headed by attorney Mark Lanier, worked to demonstrate that both defendants’ negligence substantially contributed to Kaley’s harm. They highlighted specific design elements they claimed were created to “hook” young users, including endless content feeds, automatic video playback, and notification systems.
Jurors received instructions to disregard the actual content Kaley viewed on these platforms. This limitation exists because technology companies receive legal protection from content posted on their sites under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Meta’s defense consistently maintained that Kaley experienced mental health challenges unrelated to social media usage, frequently referencing her difficult family situation. Following closing arguments, Meta stated that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health difficulties. However, the plaintiff’s attorneys only needed to prove social media served as a “substantial factor” in causing harm, not the primary cause.
YouTube’s defense strategy focused less on Kaley’s medical history and more on her platform usage patterns and YouTube’s characteristics. They contended that YouTube functions as a video platform similar to television rather than social media, pointing to her decreased YouTube usage over time. Their data showed 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.
Both platforms’ legal representatives repeatedly emphasized the safety tools and monitoring features available to users for customizing their experience.
This case, selected randomly as a bellwether trial alongside several others, could influence how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies proceed.
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, emphasizing the significance of bringing Meta and Google’s internal documents into public view.
Marquez-Garrett criticized social media companies, saying they are “not taking the cancerous talcum powder off the shelves,” referencing a previous case handled by Lanier’s firm that resulted in a multi-billion-dollar verdict. “And they’re not going to because they’re making too much money killing kids.”
The Social Media Victims Law Center and families who connect their children’s deaths or injuries to social media platforms will continue their legal battle, Marquez-Garrett said, wearing multiple rubber wristbands honoring victims that she has kept on since trial began.
This trial represents one of several that social media companies will face this year and beyond. These cases culminate years of examination regarding platform child safety and whether companies design addictive features that promote content leading 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.
