Social media giants found liable for social media addiction in landmark court case

A Los Angeles jury ruled that Google and Meta were at fault for a woman’s social media addiction, marking a significant legal milestone. The decision held Instagram, a Meta-owned platform, and YouTube, operated by Google, accountable for the harm caused to the anonymous plaintiff, awarding her $6 million in damages.

Verdict Details

The jury concluded that the negligence in the design and operation of these platforms was a major contributor to the plaintiff’s distress. This ruling is considered a bellweather decision, potentially shaping future lawsuits against social media companies for their addictive features.

Corporate Responses

Meta expressed “respectful disagreement” with the verdict, while Google planned to challenge it through an appeal. The nine-day trial, which spanned over 40 hours of deliberation, resulted in the finding that both companies had failed in their responsibility to users.

Trial Overview

The trial centered on the claim that Instagram, YouTube, and other platforms like TikTok and Snapchat were engineered to be addictive. Though TikTok and Snapchat settled before the case reached its conclusion, the focus remained on Instagram and YouTube’s role in the plaintiff’s mental health decline.

Plaintiff’s Case

Kaley, a 20-year-old Californian referred to as KGM in court, alleges that her use of social media from an early age led to severe mental health issues. Her legal team argued that the platforms were designed to hook users, with one attorney stating, “How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction.”

“They engineered it, they put these features on the phones. These are Trojan horses: They look wonderful and great…but you invite them in and they take over.” — Mark Lanier, Kaley’s lawyer

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, testified that his platforms were created to positively impact users’ lives. He emphasized that the intent was to provide a beneficial experience, not to trap people in endless scrolling.

Defenses and Counterarguments

Instagram’s Adam Mosseri defended the platform, noting there is no scientific proof of social media addiction. He distinguished between clinical addiction and “problematic use,” suggesting the plaintiff’s behavior fell into the latter category.

“That sounds like problematic use.” — Adam Mosseri, addressing the plaintiff’s 16-hour Instagram session

YouTube’s legal team contested the claim, arguing that the platform does not qualify as social media and that the plaintiff’s interest in it diminished over time. “Ask whether anybody suffering from addiction could just say, ‘Yeah, I kinda lost interest,'” their lawyer Luis Li remarked during closing arguments.

Broader Implications

Meta also pointed to the plaintiff’s troubled childhood, asserting that her mental health struggles stemmed from other factors rather than social media. The case is the first of many expected in the U.S., with over 1,600 plaintiffs, including 350 families and 250 school districts, alleging that companies designed addictive products.

“Win or lose the outcome of this trial, victims in the United States have won because now we know that social media companies can and will be held accountable before a fair and impartial jury.” — Matthew Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center