Mark Zuckerberg leaving Los Angeles Superior Court last month.
Credit: Jon Putman/Anadolu via Getty Images
On Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and YouTube negligent for their failure to warn their users about potential dangers associated with their apps and services. Specifically, the jury found that Meta and YouTube “harmed” a young user, a now 20-year-old identified as K.G.M., via addictive features that led to the user’s “mental health distress.”
Meta and YouTube are now on the hook for $3 million in damages. Meta will pay the majority of the sum (70%, or $2.1 million), while YouTube will pay the remaining 30% ($900,000). It’s a landmark case that could have wide-ranging repercussions for all social media platforms.
K.G.M.’s case accused Meta and YouTube of acting like tobacco companies or digital casinos in creating products that are addicting and lead to anxiety and depression in their users. Rather than peddle in cigarettes or gambling, Meta and YouTube offer content via infinite scrolling, with recommendations served up by intelligent algorithms that know what users will be interested in. Snap (makers of Snapchat) and TikTok were also named, but settled for an undisclosed sum ahead of the trial.
The case kicked off in January, while the jury began deliberating on Friday, March 13. It’s not over, either: While the jury determined this initial compensation sum, they must now decide on punitive damages for malice or fraud, which could be much higher.
K.G.M.’s case is far from the only one social media companies are facing. According to The New York Times, there are currently thousands of lawsuits targeting companies like Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, brought forward by teenagers, schools districts, and state attorneys general. Meta was previously found liable in New Mexico for failing to protect users from child predators; the jury in that case ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages. It’s an encouraging trend for the plaintiffs, as social media companies were once seen as legally protected in these cases—the idea was, the companies themselves weren’t liable for how people made use of the platform.
A Meta spokesperson told the Times: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” while YouTube did not return a request for comment.
There are still many cases to go, and the verdicts that have been delivered are still fresh. These things also take time: K.G.M. originally filed suit back in 2023, so we might be following many of these other lawsuits for years. But these initial results could be a bellwether for future cases, suggesting that social media companies may need to radically change their platform designs—or risk facing legal repercussions.
What do you think so far?
In K.G.M.’s case, lawyers presented evidence that executives of both Meta and YouTube knew the harm their platforms caused minors. This is hardly a secret: Social media companies, including Meta, have been documented as being well aware of the effects their platforms have on children—they just chose profits and growth over limiting those potential harms. They might face more of a public reckoning now that these cases are coming back in favor of the plaintiffs.
The key question is whether the impact of such lawsuits will be enough for Meta and the like to change course, or if they will determine their current models are more lucrative, even given the financial risk involved. I have a hard time believing that Meta will change its platform in fundamental ways unless the judgements go a lot higher. The fines involved need to be so great as to overshadow the money the company makes by maintaining the status quo. Otherwise, why would Meta or YouTube change their ways?
To be fair, in recent years companies have started to roll out more controls for parents and more restrictions for underage users. But it’s tough to efforts to protect children seriously when, for example, we know that internally, Meta was perfectly fine with its AI getting flirty with minors.
