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

Social Media Giants Found Liable for Social Media Addiction in Landmark Court Case

A Los Angeles jury ruled that Google and Meta are responsible for a woman’s social media addiction in a groundbreaking legal case. The verdict, which came after nine days of deliberation spanning more than 40 hours, awarded the anonymous plaintiff $6 million in damages.

The jury determined that Instagram, under Meta’s ownership, and YouTube, operated by Google, contributed to the plaintiff’s harm through their platform designs. This decision is viewed as a pivotal moment, potentially influencing future lawsuits against major social media companies for their addictive algorithms.

Meta and Google both contested the findings, with the former stating it would appeal the ruling. The trial, which concluded on Wednesday, centered on claims that Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat were engineered to be addictive, despite the latter two settling out of court.

Kaley, the plaintiff known as KGM in the courtroom, is a 20-year-old Californian who alleges her mental health deteriorated due to early exposure to social media. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, argued that the platforms’ features were designed to trap users, likening them to “Trojan horses” that appear beneficial but ultimately dominate daily life.

“How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction,” Lanier stated to the jury.

The trial saw Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, testify for the first time. He emphasized that his platforms were built to positively impact users’ lives, stating, “It’s very important to me that what we do […] is a positive force in their lives.”

Adam Mosseri, Instagram’s head, also appeared in court, denying that social media constitutes a clinical addiction. He highlighted the distinction between “problematic use” and formal addiction, describing the plaintiff’s 16-hour daily Instagram session as an example of the former.

YouTube’s legal team argued that its platform should not be included in the case, claiming it doesn’t fit the definition of social media and that the evidence didn’t strongly link the plaintiff’s addiction to the service. Their lawyer, Luis Li, questioned whether someone with an addiction could simply say, “Yeah, I kinda lost interest.”

Meta defended its position by citing the plaintiff’s troubled childhood, asserting that none of her therapists identified social media as the root cause of her mental health issues. This case is the first in a series targeting Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, with over 1,600 individuals—including families and school districts—alleging addictive product designs harmed young users.

Matthew Bergman, lead attorney for the Social Media Victims Law Center, described the trial as a significant victory for victims. “Win or lose, victims in the U.S. have won because now social media companies can be held accountable before a fair jury,” he said, noting more trials are expected in the future.