Meta and YouTube Found Liable for Social Media Harm

A jury in Los Angeles has determined that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, and Google’s YouTube are liable for harm caused to children using their platforms, awarding $3 million to a young woman who claims her childhood addiction to social media negatively impacted her mental health.

This landmark ruling came after jurors deliberated for more than 40 hours over a span of nine days. They concluded that both companies exhibited negligence in how their platforms are designed and operated, which significantly contributed to the plaintiff’s issues. The woman, now 20, testified that her childhood involvement with social media deepened her addiction to technology and worsened her mental health challenges.

The jury’s award is likely to rise because they found that both companies acted with malice. As a result, the jury is set to reconvene to consider more evidence and decide on punitive damages, which may considerably boost the amount awarded.

Meta and YouTube were the last defendants standing, as TikTok and Snap settled before the trial. The plaintiff, referred to as KGM or Kaylee in court documents, was supported by key figures from the tech industry. While Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri from Meta testified, the CEO of YouTube, Neil Mohan, did not appear in court.

Kaylee started using YouTube at just six years old and Instagram at nine, according to her testimony. She explained to the jurors that social media consumed her entire day as a child. The legal team representing her, led by attorney Mark Lanier, had to show that the negligence of each defendant played a crucial role in her distress.

The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that certain features of these platforms were deliberately designed to appeal to younger users. This included practices like infinite content feeds, autoplay options, and notification systems. The jury was instructed not to factor in the specific content Kaylee engaged with, as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects tech companies from liability for user-posted content.

Throughout the trial, the defense argued that Kaylee’s mental health issues stemmed from factors unrelated to her social media usage, including a turbulent home life. A statement from the defense asserted that no mental health professional had directly identified social media as a cause of her issues. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs only needed to prove that social media was a significant contributor to her harm, rather than a direct cause.

YouTube offered a differing defense strategy, focusing less on Kaylee’s mental health history and more on how she used the platform. They contended that YouTube is fundamentally different from social media; it’s more like a television video platform. They highlighted evidence suggesting that her YouTube usage actually decreased as she got older, noting that she typically spent only about a minute a day on YouTube Shorts, a feature introduced in 2020 that includes a continuous scrolling aspect claimed to be addictive.

Both companies’ legal representatives reiterated the safety features available on their platforms to help users manage their usage.

Laura Marquez Garrett, an attorney from the Social Media Victims Law Center representing Kaylee, stated that this trial represents more than just a singular outcome. Regardless of the final verdict, she emphasized its historic nature as the first trial of its kind, underscoring the importance of public access to internal documents from Meta and Google.

“We respectfully disagree with this ruling and are considering our legal options,” a spokesperson from Meta remarked.

In a related note, a New Mexico jury recently awarded Meta $375 million due to failures in protecting children from exploitation.