Jury finds Instagram and YouTube liable in landmark social media addiction trial

The multimillion-dollar verdict will only grow since the jury decided the companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud. This means they will hear new evidence shortly and head back into the deliberation room to decide on punitive damages.

Both Meta and YouTube issued statements disagreeing with the verdict and vowing to explore their legal options, which includes appeals.

Google spokesman Jose Castañeda also said in their statement that the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

The jury determined that Meta and YouTube knew that the design, or operation, of their platforms was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor. They also said the platforms failed to adequately warn of the danger, which further contributed to the plaintiff's harm.

Only nine out of the 12 jurors had to agree on each claim against each defendant. Two jurors consistently disagreed with the other 10 on whether the technology companies should be held liable.

The jurors also decided Meta held more responsibility for harm to the plaintiff, who has been identified by her initials KGM. The jury said Meta shouldered 70% of the responsibility while YouTube bore the remaining 30%.

Meta and Google-owned YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap each settled before the trial began.

Jurors listened to about a month of lawyers’ arguments, testimony and evidence, and they heard from the KGM, or Kaley as her lawyers have called her during the trial, as well as Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri. YouTube’s CEO, Neal Mohan, was not called in to testify.

Kaley says she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9 and told the jury she was on social media “all day long” as a child.

Lawyers representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the respective defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley’s harm. They pointed to specific design features they said were designed to “hook” young users, like the “infinite” nature of feeds that allowed for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and even notifications.

The jurors were told not to take into account the content of the posts and videos that Kaley saw on the platforms. That’s because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of YouTube and the nature of the platform. They argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform akin to television, and pointed to her declining YouTube use as she got older. According to their data, she spent about one minute a day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section of short-form, vertical videos that have the “infinite scroll” feature the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

Lawyers representing both platforms also consistently pointed to the safety features and guardrails they each have available for people to monitor and customize their use.

The case, along with several others, has been randomly selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits filed against social media companies play out.

While both the Los Angeles case and another in New Mexico that concluded Tuesday, focused on the harms afflicted on children, there were key differences between the two. New Mexico’s lawsuit was filed by state Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2023. State investigators built their case by posing as children on social media, then documenting sexual solicitations they received as well as Meta’s response. The jury was asked to determine if Meta violated New Mexico’s consumer protection law.

The Los Angeles case had a single plaintiff against Meta, Google’s YouTube, TikTok and Snap. The plaintiff in this case argued that the platform design features of the two remaining defendants, Meta and YouTube, were designed to be addictive, especially for young users. Because thousands of families have filed similar lawsuits, Kaley and a handful of other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury, eventually leading to broader settlement reminiscent of the Big Tobacco and opioid trials.