Milestone ruling! Meta and Google found liable in social media addiction case

```

On Wednesday local time, a US jury in a landmark verdict ruled that Meta and Alphabet's Google must pay compensation to a 20-year-old woman. The woman claims her addiction to social media led to a mental health crisis. This result could signal significant risks for the two companies as they face thousands of similar lawsuits.

The verdict, delivered in Los Angeles on Wednesday after the jury’s ninth day of deliberation, highlights the difficulty in determining how much responsibility social media bears for varying degrees of psychological distress among teens. It also underscores the potential for billions of dollars in risk from these lawsuits. The suits accuse platforms like Instagram and YouTube of being deliberately designed to addict young users while disregarding their physical and mental health.

Later this year, California state courts will review two more cases with potential to set precedent. If these companies continue to lose, it could prompt settlement negotiations, leading to broad agreements similar to those that heavily impacted the tobacco and opioid industries.

These lawsuits are filed by children, adolescents, and young adults, sometimes via their parents, siblings, or other family members. Reasons include psychological distress, physical injury, and death by suicide.

The jury ruled that Meta must pay plaintiff Kaley G.M. at least $2.1 million in compensation, including treatment costs, and Google must pay at least $900,000. After Wednesday's verdict, the jury heard further arguments about whether to impose additional punitive damages on the two companies.

In this first case of its kind to reach trial, the 12-member jury found Meta and Google negligent in platform design and operation and that they should have warned about risks their products pose to minors. Unlike criminal cases, some civil cases do not require unanimous verdicts; in this case, the jury found the companies liable by a vote of 10 to 2.

Kaley stated that she began watching videos on YouTube at age 6 and started using Instagram at 9. She attributed issues such as anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia to these platforms. She attended the verdict in court but showed no visible reaction.

Meta stated: "We respect but disagree with the verdict and are evaluating legal options."

Google's spokesperson said: "We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. The case mischaracterizes YouTube—it is a responsibly built video streaming platform, not social media."

Kaley’s lawyer stated that the verdict sent a clear message: "Today, the jury saw the truth and held Meta and Google accountable for designing addictive products which harmed children."

This trial is seen as a key test of new legal arguments used in numerous similar cases over the past three years. These cases target Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok, alleging the platforms’ ‘design’ itself—not content—harms teens. TikTok and Snap reached confidential settlements with Kaley before trial but are still defendants in wider litigation.

Besides the Los Angeles case, these social media companies face consumer protection lawsuits from attorneys general in over 30 states and public nuisance lawsuits from more than 1,000 public school districts across the US. These cases are currently before a federal judge in Oakland, California, and are expected to go to trial later this year. This too could expose tech giants to billions in damages and force changes in their operations.

This week Meta suffered its second defeat. On Tuesday, in a New Mexico case, the jury found the company misled local teens about the safety of Facebook and Instagram despite knowing they had become breeding grounds for sexual predators, and imposed a civil penalty of $375 million.

In the Los Angeles case, Kaley’s lawyers argued that the platforms were carefully designed to be irresistible, causing serious harm to young users. Because adolescent brains are not fully developed, they are more susceptible to addiction.

The lawyers did not make accusations about user-posted content, since internet companies generally have legal protections regarding third-party content.

Instead, the trial focused on platform feature design—such as notifications, likes, comments, infinite scroll, autoplay videos, and beauty filters that alter appearance—all alleged to be addictive. Over a month of proceedings, the jury heard testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, several mental health experts, and Kaley herself.

Kaley’s lead attorney, Mark Lanier, argued these platforms are designed like casinos, with each refresh or notification triggering dopamine responses in users’ brains. In closing arguments, he said: "These are not apps, they are traps"—tools used by tech companies to lure young users and maximize their time on the platforms for profit. He called it "addiction by design."

Meta and Google both deny responsibility for Kaley’s difficulties. Meta’s lawyer said her mental health issues were also affected by family conflict, academic struggles, and peer bullying. Company lawyers stressed that treatment records showed no diagnosis of social media addiction but rather positive interactions with the platforms.

One doctor’s report claimed Instagram was a positive factor in Kaley’s life, allowing her to express creativity; another stated that watching YouTube videos helped her sleep.

Google’s lawyer Luis Li also distinguished between YouTube and Instagram, arguing the former is not social media. He pointed out Kaley used YouTube most at age 8, then gradually decreased, and now mainly uses it to listen to music.

During deliberations, the judge and lawyers repeatedly reminded the jury to disregard content-related issues when assessing responsibility. They were told not to hold the companies liable for failing to remove certain content or for features allowing content to be private or disappear after a set time.

Risk warning and disclaimerThe market bears risks, investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation, or needs of any individual user. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular situation. Investing based on this article is at your own risk. ```