Key facts
- A jury found Meta (Instagram/Facebook) and YouTube liable for designing addictive platforms that harmed a young user.
- The plaintiff was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.
- Jurors determined Meta was 70% responsible and YouTube 30% responsible for the harm.
- The verdict is a first-of-its-kind ruling that could influence thousands of similar lawsuits.
- Meta and YouTube have stated they will appeal the decision.
A landmark trial concluded with a jury finding Meta and YouTube liable for designing their platforms to be addictive and harmful to young users. The plaintiff, identified by initials KGM, testified that her childhood addiction to social media exacerbated her mental health struggles. After over 40 hours of deliberation, the jury awarded her $3 million in compensatory damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages, citing the companies' malice, oppression, or fraud in harming children.
The jury determined that both Meta and YouTube were negligent and knew their platforms could be dangerous for minors, failing to adequately warn them. Meta was assigned 70% of the responsibility for the plaintiff's harm, with YouTube bearing the remaining 30%, reflected in the punitive damages breakdown of $2.1 million for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube.
This verdict is the second against Meta this week, following a New Mexico jury's finding that the company harms children's mental health and safety. TikTok and Snap had settled their cases before this trial began.
Meta and YouTube have stated their disagreement with the verdict and intend to appeal. A Google spokesperson described YouTube as a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site, while a Meta spokesperson noted the complexity of teen mental health. Legal experts view the decision as a significant development but anticipate a long legal process before any substantial changes to platform operations occur, drawing parallels to the tobacco and opioid litigation.
The plaintiff began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, testifying she was on social media "all day long" as a child. Lawyers for the plaintiff highlighted design features like infinite feeds and autoplay as intentionally addictive. The jury was instructed to disregard the content of posts due to Section 230 protections. Meta argued the plaintiff's mental health issues were unrelated to social media, while YouTube contended it is a video platform, not social media, and noted the plaintiff's minimal use of YouTube Shorts.