Jury Orders Meta and YouTube to Pay Millions in Damages in Landmark Social Media Case

A jury in California has awarded millions in damages to a 20-year-old woman, known as KGM, in a case against Meta and YouTube. The verdict claims these platforms are designed to engage young users without considering their well-being. This case could impact numerous similar lawsuits that accuse social media companies of intentionally causing harm.

The plaintiff testified that her addiction to social media began in childhood and worsened her mental health issues. After extensive deliberation, a majority of the jury agreed, awarding her $3 million in damages. They later called for an additional punitive $3 million, citing corporate malice and deception. The judge will finalize the exact amount of the awarded damages.

This ruling represents the second recent verdict against Meta. Earlier, a New Mexico jury found the company violated state law by damaging children’s mental health. Meta owns Instagram and Facebook, while YouTube is part of Google.

In response, both companies expressed disagreement with the verdict. A Google spokesperson highlighted YouTube’s design as a responsible streaming platform and not as social media. Meta emphasized the complexity of teen mental health issues, which they argue can’t be linked to a single app.

“A momentous development,” said Peter Ormerod, Associate Professor at Villanova University, while noting the long journey ahead before achieving significant platform changes.

The jury concluded that Meta held more responsibility in harming Kaley, with 70% of the blame as opposed to YouTube’s 30%. Jurors aligned this division with their punitive damages: $2.1 million from Meta and $900,000 from YouTube. TikTok and Snap, initial defendants, opted to settle before trial.

Meta and YouTube faced accusations of negligence in platform design, with significant consequences for minors. The jury noted unanimity was not a requirement; only nine out of twelve needed to agree on each charge. One juror recounted Mark Zuckerberg’s vacillating testimony as unsettling. Though some jurors aimed for higher damages, they worried about offering a lump sum. They still sought to impart the gravity of their message to the corporations.

The plaintiff began using YouTube at six and Instagram at nine. She described being on social media ‘all day long.’ Her legal team, led by Mark Lanier, argued specific platform features, like infinite feeds and autoplay, were crafted to engage users continuously.

Legal protections under the 1996 Communications Decency Act limit liability for platform content, steering focus towards the addictive nature of platform features. Plaintiffs needed only to prove social media was a part of the harm equation, not its sole cause.

Meta refuted claims that social media significantly impacted the plaintiff’s mental health, attributing challenges to her home life and emphasized therapist statements that didn’t connect her struggles to platform use. YouTube highlighted its nature as a video platform, noting declining use and emphasizing safety features available to the user.

The Los Angeles case stands as a precedent that may guide other lawsuits involving social media platforms and their impact on youth. Sarah Kreps of Cornell University observed potential parallels with the tobacco cases, noting that an early verdict like this can set a significant precedent.