Jury reaches verdict in blockbuster Meta, YouTube social media trial

A jury in Los Angeles determined on Wednesday that Meta and Google were negligent and failed to warn users of the dangers associated with using their platforms, in a case that could have repercussions across the social media and the broader technology market.

The personal injury trial commenced in late January in Los Angeles Superior Court. A young woman identified as K.G.M., or Kaley, alleged that she became addicted to apps like Instagram and YouTube as a child. Deliberations began Friday, March 13.

Jurors ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who claimed that Meta and YouTube’s negligence played a “substantial factor” in causing mental health-related harms.

It’s one of several trials taking place this year that experts have characterized as the social media industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment, comparing it the 1990s, when tobacco companies were forced to pay billions of dollars for lying to the public about the safety and potential harms of their products.

On Tuesday, jurors in Santa Fe, New Mexico found that Meta willfully violated the state’s unfair practices after Attorney General Raúl Torrez alleged that the company failed to properly safeguard its apps from online predators targeting children. Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages based on the number of violations. The company said that it would appeal the case.

The New Mexico case is separate from other social media lawsuits that state attorneys general have brought against companies including Meta and TikTok.

During the six-week trial in L.A., jury members were tasked with determining whether Meta and YouTube implemented certain design features in their apps like recommendation algorithms and auto-play that contributed to K.G.M.’s crippling, mental distress. The 20-year-old woman alleged that she suffered from severe body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts due to her near-constant use of the apps and the constant notifications that made it difficult for her to stop.

Meta and YouTube denied the plaintiff’s claims, and said they take safety and health concerns seriously and have implemented features intended to minimize potential harms. Attorneys representing the tech giants alleged that K.G.M.’s mental health problems stemmed from a turbulent childhood and related family issues, and that she used the services as a way to cope with trauma.  

The court chose the plaintiff’s case as a bellwether to help determine verdicts in similar and connected litigation throughout the state of California under so-called Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings. Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, they settled with the plaintiff before the trial began, and are still involved in other legal proceedings.

A federal trial is set…