A Los Angeles jury has delivered what legal experts are calling social media's "Big Tobacco" moment, finding Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive platforms that harmed a young user's mental health.
The landmark verdict orders the companies to pay $6 million in damages to a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley, who testified that compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube as a child led to depression and anxiety. Jurors awarded $3 million in compensatory damages plus an additional $3 million in punitive damages after determining the companies "acted with malice, oppression, or fraud."
Meta will shoulder 70% of the total award ($4.2 million) while YouTube parent Google faces 30% ($1.8 million).
The case represents the first time a U.S. jury has treated social media apps as defective products engineered to exploit developing brains.
"This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,"
a Google spokesperson said following the verdict. Meta stated it "respectfully disagree[s] with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options," adding that "teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app."
The decision came just one day after a separate New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to protect young users from child predators on Instagram and Facebook. That trial will enter a second phase in May where a judge will decide whether Meta created a public nuisance requiring additional penalties.
Legal analysts say the back-to-back verdicts signal growing judicial scrutiny of platform design choices like infinite scroll and recommendation algorithms that critics argue increase engagement at users' expense. The Los Angeles case specifically focused on whether features were intentionally built to "hook" young users without concern for their wellbeing.
Jurors deliberated for more than 40 hours before reaching their decision Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court. One juror told reporters outside the courtroom that Mark Zuckerberg's testimony "did not sit well" with the panel due to inconsistencies in his statements.
The verdict could influence outcomes for approximately 2,000 similar lawsuits currently winding through U.S. courts alleging social media companies deliberately cause harm through addictive design.
Research director Mike Proulx of advisory firm Forrester described the decisions as marking a "breaking point" between social media companies and public trust.
Both companies have announced plans to appeal.
