In a groundbreaking trial that tested claims regarding social media addiction, the jury ruled against Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube, stating that the companies failed to adequately warn users about the potential risks associated with their products. The jury found that the negligence of both companies played a significant role in causing harm, including mental health issues, to a 20-year-old woman named Kaley G.M., who was a user of Instagram and YouTube.

As a result of the verdict, both companies have been ordered to pay a total of $3 million in compensatory damages. Meta is responsible for 70 percent of this amount, according to feedback from the jurors who represented plaintiffs, including Kaley. The jury also determined that punitive damages were warranted and will further deliberate on the appropriate amount to be awarded. While two jurors sided with the defense, the verdict did not require a unanimous decision.

In response to the verdict, Meta spokesperson Francis Brennan expressed disagreement and announced plans to appeal, emphasizing the complexity of teen mental health and the uniqueness of each case. Similarly, Google spokesperson José Castañeda disagreed with the verdict, asserting that YouTube is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.

The co-lead counsels for plaintiffs involved in a series of California state cases, including Kaley’s, hailed the verdict as a historic moment for children and families affected by the negative impacts of social media addiction. They emphasized that the ruling signifies a shift towards greater accountability for social media companies that have profited from targeting children while concealing the addictive and harmful aspects of their platforms.

In a separate case in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta had willfully violated state law by misleading consumers about the safety of its products.

Thousands of cases filed by individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general are pending in both the LA state court and a federal court in Oakland, CA. The outcome of Kaley’s case, along with upcoming bellwether cases, will provide insights into how juries are likely to rule on issues of product liability related to social media companies. Of particular interest is how these rulings may impact Section 230, the legal shield that has protected social media companies from liability for user-generated content.

Update, March 25th: Added comment from Google and updated statement from Meta.