In a decision that legal experts are calling the social media industry’s Big Tobacco moment, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Wednesday found Big Tech’s Meta Platforms Inc. and Google negligent for failing to warn users about the addictive dangers of their platforms.
The verdict concludes a high-stakes personal injury trial that began in late January, centering on the mental health struggles of a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., or Kaley. The plaintiff alleged that she became severely addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child, leading to a downward spiral of body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal ideation.
Kaley was awarded $3 million in a result likely to have major implications for hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through U.S. courts. [TikTok and Snap were originally named in the suit but reached private settlements before the trial started.]
Throughout the six-week trial, Kaley’s legal team, led by attorney Mark Lanier, argued that the platforms functioned as behemoths that targeted vulnerable minors. Lanier characterized the apps’ design—specifically recommendation algorithms and auto-play features—as a “Trojan horse” strategy designed to trap children in near-constant loops of notifications and engagement.
The jury’s decision affirms a legal theory that social media sites and apps can cause personal injury, drawing inspiration from a legal strategy used against tobacco makers last century. Lawyers argued then that the companies created addictive products that harmed users.
The plaintiffs successfully navigated legal hurdles such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that often protect tech companies from liability regarding third-party posts by focusing on the technical design of the platforms rather than the specific content hosted on them.
The defense for Meta and Google strongly contested these claims, maintaining that the companies are committed to user well-being. Defense attorneys questioned the scientific validity of social media addiction as a diagnosis. Furthermore, they attempted to shift the focus toward the plaintiff’s personal life, suggesting her mental health struggles were rooted in alleged verbal and physical abuse by her parents rather than screen time.
“This verdict is not only historic, but also the exact right answer! For years, social media companies have fought regulations left and right all so that people’s data can be pilfered and then used to manipulate people,” data privacy attorney Collin Walke said in an email. “I hope this verdict sends a message to them to realize we’re not products, we’re people and their algorithms have caused real harm.”
“An entire generation of children have been raised on casino-style addiction techniques, and, to make matters worse, tech companies have not only mapped children’s personalities and behaviors but shaped them,” Walke said. “Data is power, and technology companies know how to utilize that power for profit – not for the public good.”
The Los Angeles verdict follows another significant blow for Meta. On Tuesday, a jury in Santa Fe, N.M., found that the company willfully violated state unfair practices laws. That case, brought by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, alleged Meta failed to protect children from online predators. Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages, a ruling the company has already vowed to appeal.
The New Mexico complaint was crafted with explicit awareness of this obstacle. It asked a single question: Did Meta knowingly lie to New Mexico consumers about the safety of its products? The jury agreed.
In Los Angeles, a jury found that Meta and Google were liable under product liability theories. Specifically, it determined the platforms were defectively designed and that the companies failed to warn parents and children about the addictive nature of their algorithms. While Section 230 protects the hosting of speech, it offers no safe harbor from claims based on product design.
The twin legal defeats signal a shifting tide for Silicon Valley. With Congress yet to pass comprehensive federal regulations, the battleground over child safety has moved to the courtroom.
The verdict could influence thousands of pending lawsuits filed by parents, school districts, and state attorneys general.
A federal case in Oakland, Calif., is set for this summer, with another major state trial involving Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat scheduled for July in Los Angeles.
At least 20 states enacted laws last year to regulate social media usage among minors, despite pushback from industry trade groups like NetChoice.
“Policymakers should not allow litigation to replace regulation. Instead of letting precedent slowly build over years of expensive trials or a patchwork of state laws, Congress should pass a single federal law that prioritizes easy-to-use parental controls and reasonable, targeted measures to address specific harms to children,” Ash Johnson, senior policy manager at Innovation Foundation, said in an email.
As at least half of American teenagers report using YouTube or Instagram daily, this verdict marks the first time a jury has held these companies directly responsible for the psychological impact of their product design on the nation’s youth.
