A United States jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for harm caused to a young user, marking a significant legal development in the scrutiny of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers.
The verdict, delivered by a Los Angeles court on March 26, held Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google-owned YouTube responsible for negligence in operating platforms that contributed to harm and for failing to adequately warn users about potential risks. The ruling is being seen as one of the most consequential legal setbacks for major technology firms in recent years.
The case was filed by a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley G.M., who told the court that her prolonged engagement with the platforms began in early childhood and increasingly dominated her daily life. She stated that her usage was linked to mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia.
The jury awarded damages totalling $6 million, including $3 million in compensatory damages and an equal amount in punitive damages. Jurors were nearly unanimous in their conclusions across multiple aspects of the case, underscoring the weight of the findings.
During testimony, the plaintiff described starting to watch videos on YouTube at the age of six and creating an Instagram account by the age of nine. She said her use intensified over time, with a growing sense of compulsion to remain active on the platforms. Her account highlighted the role of continuous engagement features in shaping prolonged usage patterns.
The plaintiff’s legal counsel argued that the platforms were deliberately designed to maximise user engagement, particularly among younger audiences. The argument emphasised that the damages awarded should serve both as punishment for the alleged wrongdoing and as a deterrent against similar practices in the future.
The defence contested these claims, maintaining that the plaintiff’s experiences could not be attributed solely to platform use. Company representatives pointed to other contributing factors, including personal circumstances and instances of bullying, as part of a broader context influencing mental health outcomes.
Senior executives, including Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, rejected allegations that their platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive. Zuckerberg told the court that the company’s objective was to provide meaningful services rather than maximise user time, noting that internal metrics had evolved over time.
Following the verdict, both companies indicated they would challenge the ruling. Meta stated that it would pursue an appeal, arguing that adolescent mental health issues are complex and cannot be linked to a single application. YouTube also signalled its intention to contest the decision, asserting that its platform functions as a streaming service rather than a traditional social media network.
The case forms part of a broader wave of litigation against technology companies over the impact of digital platforms on young users. More than 3,000 similar cases are currently pending in California courts, targeting companies including Meta, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok. Some firms have opted to settle claims prior to trial.
Legal analysts suggest the verdict could shape how courts evaluate claims related to platform design and user harm, particularly in cases involving minors. The ruling may also influence future settlements as companies reassess their legal exposure.
The decision follows a separate ruling in New Mexico, where Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in a case involving child safety concerns. The developments come amid increasing global scrutiny of social media platforms, with governments considering stricter regulations, including age restrictions, enhanced parental controls, and limitations on features that encourage prolonged engagement.
