Historic verdict holds Meta and YouTube accountable for addictive design and harm to young users

A California jury ruled Wednesday that Meta and YouTube are responsible for harming users through how their platforms are designed. Legal experts are calling it historic and drawing comparisons to the tobacco industry battles from the 1990s.

The case finished up in the Los Angeles Superior Court after six weeks of proceedings that started back in late January. A young woman identified in court documents as K.G.M., or Kaley, claimed she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.

Jurors began deliberating on Friday, March 13. They spent nearly 44 hours across nine days before reaching their decision.

Both companies were found to have played a substantial role in causing mental health damage. Meta’s on the hook for 70 percent of the $3 million in compensatory damages, with YouTube covering the rest. There’s also punitive damages – another $3 million, with Meta paying $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000.

Families whose children were allegedly harmed by social media hugged each other outside the courthouse when the verdict came down. Two jurors spoke with reporters. The foreman only gave his first name – Matthew. He said they worked hard to keep their personal feelings out of their discussions. “We stuck to following the law and how it was presented to us.”

Another juror, Victoria, didn’t mince words. “We wanted them to feel it,” she said. “We wanted them to realize this was unacceptable.”

“For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing the addictive and dangerous design features built into their platforms,” attorney Mark Lanier said. “Today, we finally have accountability.”

Tech giants plan appeals

Meta says it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal, calling teen mental health “profoundly complex” and insisting you can’t link it to one app. Google’s also planning to appeal.

Just a day earlier, on Tuesday, Meta took another hit. A New Mexico jury found the company deliberately violated state consumer protection laws. Attorney General Raúl Torrez accused Meta of failing to protect children from online predators. That case resulted in $375 million in damages.

Critics argue whether these fines will actually make a difference

A Fox Business correspondent said in an X post, “If it’s just money that they have to pay in the end, it’s just a speeding ticket as they have deep pockets of cash”.

Meta pulls in more than $100 billion every year. So a $375 million penalty? That’s not going to fundamentally change anything. It’s basically a business expense.

There’s a similar story with Google. Courts have found the company runs a search monopoly. That’s not speculation – it’s been legally established. But here’s the thing: nobody broke the company up.

There was no major overhaul. Instead, some limited fixes were put in place, and Google’s control over search remains pretty much untouched.

The Los Angeles case is serving as a bellwether for similar lawsuits throughout California. TikTok and Snap were originally defendants but settled before trial started. They’re still involved in other legal proceedings though.

A federal trial’s scheduled for this summer in Northern California. That one combines claims from school districts and parents nationwide against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap over alleged mental health harms to young users.

There’s a middle ground between leaving money in the bank and rolling the dice in crypto. Start with this free video on decentralized finance.