Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable for harming child user, awards $3 million in landmark case
A California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark lawsuit seeking to hold social media companies accountable for harm to children, awarding the plaintiff $3 million in damages. After more than 40 hours of deliberations over nine days, jurors determined that both companies were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms and that their actions were a substantial factor in harming the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who said her extensive social media use as a child led to addiction and worsened her mental health struggles.
The verdict could increase significantly, as jurors also concluded the companies acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. A separate phase of the trial will now determine potential punitive damages. Both Meta and YouTube said they disagree with the ruling and plan to explore legal options, including appeals.
Jurors found that the companies knew their platforms could be dangerous for minors and failed to provide adequate warnings about those risks. The panel assigned 70% of the responsibility to Meta and 30% to YouTube. While the decision did not require a unanimous jury, two jurors consistently disagreed with holding the companies liable.
The case moved forward against Meta and YouTube after TikTok and Snap reached settlements before trial. Over several weeks, jurors heard testimony from the plaintiff, referred to as Kaley in court, along with company executives and expert witnesses. She testified that she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and spent much of her childhood on social media.
Her legal team argued that platform features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and notifications were intentionally designed to keep young users engaged and contributed to her harm. Jurors were instructed not to consider the specific content she viewed, due to legal protections that shield platforms from liability for user-generated content.
Meta argued that the plaintiff’s mental health struggles were linked to factors outside of social media, including personal challenges, and said her therapists did not identify social media as the cause. However, the jury only needed to find that the platforms were a substantial contributing factor. YouTube’s defense focused on portraying the platform as a video service rather than social media and pointed to data suggesting her usage declined over time.
The case is one of several selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could influence thousands of similar lawsuits filed by families. The decision is expected to play a significant role in shaping how courts address claims that social media platform design can contribute to harm, particularly among younger users.
Comments
Post a Comment