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
In a significant legal ruling, a Los Angeles jury determined that Google and Meta were at fault for a woman’s social media dependency. The verdict, delivered after nearly a month of deliberation, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over the impact of digital platforms on mental health.
The jury concluded that Instagram, which operates under Meta, and YouTube, controlled by Google, played a role in the plaintiff’s struggles. The anonymous woman received $6 million in damages, with the decision highlighting the role of algorithmic design in fostering compulsive behavior.
Meta and Google both expressed disagreement with the outcome, planning to challenge the verdict through appeals. The trial, spanning nine days and over 40 hours of jury discussions, centered on whether the platforms were intentionally engineered to trap users in cycles of engagement.
Kaley, the plaintiff referred to as KGM in court, testified about her mental health decline linked to prolonged social media use. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, argued that the platforms were “Trojan horses” designed to exploit human psychology. “How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction,” he told the jury.
“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.”
During the trial, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the jury, defending the company’s mission. “I built these platforms to have a positive impact in people’s lives,” he stated, emphasizing the intent behind their creation. Adam Mosseri, Instagram’s head, contested the claim of addiction, noting the lack of scientific proof for such a diagnosis.
“There was no scientific evidence that social media was addictive,” Mosseri asserted. “It’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and what we describe as problematic use.”
YouTube’s legal team argued that the platform should not be classified as social media, citing the plaintiff’s own admission of losing interest in it over time. “Ask whether anybody suffering from addiction could just say, ‘Yeah, I kinda lost interest,'” said YouTube’s lawyer Luis Li.
Meta also pointed to the plaintiff’s troubled childhood, suggesting that her mental health issues stemmed from other factors rather than the platforms. Despite these claims, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases targeting the addictive nature of digital services.
This trial is the first in a series of high-profile lawsuits against Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. Over 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts, accuse the companies of creating products that harm young users. Matthew Bergman, representing 1,000 plaintiffs, noted that the case itself was a victory for accountability in the U.S. legal system.
“Whether this trial wins or loses, victims in the United States have won because now we know social media companies can be held accountable,” Bergman stated. “There will be many more trials, and the fight continues.”
Read more: Woman pleads not guilty to attempted murder of Rihanna Resident doctors in England to strike for six days