Social media giants found liable for social media addiction in landmark court case
In a significant legal ruling, a Los Angeles jury determined that Google and Meta were responsible for a woman’s social media addiction in a groundbreaking case. The verdict, delivered after a month-long trial, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over the impact of digital platforms on users’ well-being.
Plaintiff awarded $6 million in damages
The anonymous plaintiff was awarded $6 million in compensation, with the jury attributing her condition to the addictive nature of Instagram and YouTube. Both Meta and Google were held accountable for their role in creating algorithms designed to keep users engaged for extended periods.
A bellweather for future cases
This decision is considered a bellweather, setting a precedent for future lawsuits against social media companies. It suggests that platforms may now be required to prove their products are not harmful to users, especially younger ones.
Companies plan to challenge the verdict
Meta expressed “respectful disagreement” with the outcome, while Google stated it would “appeal” the decision. Both firms argue the jury overreached in blaming them for the plaintiff’s mental health struggles.
The trial, which spanned nine days and 40 hours of deliberation, centered on the claim that Instagram and YouTube were engineered to foster dependency. TikTok and Snapchat, though part of the original lawsuit, settled before the trial concluded.
The plaintiff’s story
Kaley, referred to as KGM in court, is a 20-year-old Californian who alleges her mental health deteriorated due to prolonged social media use starting in childhood. Her lawyer, Mark Lanier, argued that the platforms were designed to ensnare users with features acting as “Trojan horses” that “take over” lives.
“How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction,” Lanier told the jury. “They engineered it, they put these features on the phones. These are Trojan horses: They look wonderful and great…but you invite them in and they take over.”
Testimony from platform leaders
During the trial, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, emphasized the platforms’ positive impact on users. “It’s very important to me that what we do […] is a positive force in their lives,” he stated.
Adam Mosseri, Instagram’s head, testified that the term “addiction” was not scientifically accurate. He distinguished between clinical addiction and “problematic use,” calling the plaintiff’s daily 16-hour Instagram session an example of the latter.
YouTube’s defense
YouTube contested its inclusion in the case, asserting it does not qualify as social media and that the plaintiff’s addiction to the platform was not clearly established. Luis Li, representing YouTube, highlighted that the plaintiff eventually lost interest in the service.
Meta countered by attributing the plaintiff’s mental health issues to a troubled childhood, noting that none of her therapists linked her problems directly to social media.
Broader implications
This case is the first in a series targeting major platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. Over 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts, allege that companies designed addictive products harming young users.
“Win or lose the outcome of this trial, victims in the United States have won because now we know that social media companies can and will be held accountable before a fair and impartial jury,” said Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, ahead of the verdict.
