In a historic first, a California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for harm caused to a child through their platforms, awarding the plaintiff $3 million in damages. After more than 40 hours of deliberation spanning nine days, jurors determined that both companies were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms, and that their 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.
The plaintiff, identified in court documents as KGM and referred to throughout the trial as Kaley, told the jury she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, spending what she described as “all day long” on social media as a child. Her legal team, led by prominent trial attorney Mark Lanier, argued that specific design features on both platforms were deliberately engineered to hook young users — including infinite scrolling feeds that provide an endless supply of content, autoplay functions, and persistent notification systems.
The total damages award is set to grow significantly. The jury also found that both companies acted with malice, or highly egregious conduct, meaning they will soon hear additional evidence and return to deliberations to determine punitive damages on top of the initial $3 million. TikTok and Snap, who were originally named as defendants, each settled before the trial commenced.
Jurors were instructed not to consider the content that Kaley viewed on the platforms. Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, tech companies are legally shielded from liability for content posted by third parties on their services. The case, therefore, rested entirely on the platforms’ design choices and their effect on young users.
Meta consistently argued throughout the trial that Kaley had experienced mental health difficulties independent of her social media use, pointing to a turbulent home life and noting that none of her therapists had identified social media as the cause of her struggles. YouTube took a different approach, contending that it is not a social media platform but rather a video medium more comparable to television. The company pointed to data showing Kaley’s YouTube use declined as she aged, and argued that she had spent an average of just one minute per day on YouTube Shorts since its launch in 2020.
Following the verdict, Meta said in a statement that it respectfully disagreed with the jury’s decision and was evaluating its legal options. YouTube’s CEO Neal Mohan was not called to testify during the trial, though Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri both appeared on the stand.
Laura Marquez-Garrett, an attorney with the Social Media Victims Law Centre and counsel of record for the plaintiff, called the case historic regardless of the outcome, saying it was the first of its kind. She argued that social media companies are continuing to profit while
causing harm to children, and will not stop because the financial incentives remain too powerful. She appeared in court throughout the trial wearing rubber wristbands in honour of victims whose families she represents.
The case is one of several bellwether trials selected to help determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies may proceed. Legal experts and advocates have drawn comparisons to landmark litigation against the tobacco and opioid industries, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have expressed hope that social media platforms will ultimately face a similar reckoning — one that forces structural change through the courts even where legislation has stalled.
