In February, SW Newsmagazine reported on mounting legal claims that social media platforms were, in the words of one internal characterization, “basically pushers,” designed to maximize compulsive use among young users. That reporting, “We’re Basically Pushers: California Courts Hear Claims Social Media Hooked Kids,” anticipated a legal theory that has now been tested and, at least for the moment, accepted by a jury.
A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday delivered a strong statement on that theory, finding Meta Platforms and YouTube, owned by Google, liable for creating products that led to harmful and addictive behavior among minors. The case, K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., centered on a lead plaintiff identified in filings as “KGMm,” a young woman named Kaley, who argued that early and prolonged use of Instagram and YouTube contributed to depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts.
The platforms’ content wasn’t the main factor in the verdict; rather, the design was the problem.
Jurors ruled that Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing and operating their platforms and were aware that “their platforms could have adverse effects on minors but failed to adequately warn users.”
A total of $6 million was awarded by the jurors. With $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, the court determined that the companies were not only negligent but also behaved in a way that the court described as:
“malice, oppression or fraud.”
Responsibility was apportioned at 70 percent to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube, with Meta ordered to pay $2.1 million of the punitive damages and YouTube $900,000.
The verdict followed weeks of testimony, including from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri. Jurors deliberated for more than 40 hours over nine days and at one point signaled difficulty reaching consensus. They heard arguments, testimony, and evidence from the plaintiff, referred to in court as KGM, or Kaley by her legal team. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan was not called to testify.
Google spokesman Jose Castañeda said the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
While the decision was not unanimous, a majority found both companies liable, meeting the threshold required under California civil law.
Legal analysts note the punitive damages finding may be especially significant. Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute said:
“Oftentimes, punitive damages will be vastly larger compared to the compensatory damages, and the plaintiff gets to keep those damages.”
A separate case, State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms Inc., reached a similar conclusion this week but at a considerably higher cost. A jury found Meta liable for misleading users about the safety of its platforms for children. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez called the outcome a turning point in industry accountability. The jury mandated that Meta pay $375 million in civil penalties for breaking New Mexico’s consumer protection laws, with each infraction carrying a maximum penalty of $5,000. The jury determined that Meta was responsible for both of the state of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act claims.
Meta responded forcefully to the California decision. In an official statement following the verdict, the company said:
“We disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
Zuckerberg conceded, “We are not perfect.”
Meta added that it has:
“invested significantly in tools and policies to support teens and families,”
while maintaining that evidence does not support claims that its platforms are inherently addictive. Google has taken a similar position, signaling an appeal and emphasizing that platform design is only one factor influencing user behavior.
The immediate impact of these rulings is likely limited. While the financial penalties carry symbolic weight, they are unlikely to compel swift operational changes, and the appeals process could delay enforcement for years. The features at the center of the case, including algorithmic feeds, autoplay, and infinite scroll, remain deeply embedded in the companies’ business models.
What has changed is the legal framing. By focusing on product design rather than user-generated content, plaintiffs have begun to bypass traditional defenses that have long shielded technology companies from liability. The Los Angeles jury’s willingness to assign responsibility based on design choices—and to attach punitive damages—marks a notable shift in how courts may handle similar claims going forward.
For now, Meta’s response suggests a strategy of contesting the rulings rather than conceding the premise. Its emphasis on existing safety tools, combined with the decision to appeal, indicates that any meaningful redesign of its platforms is unlikely in the near term. Google’s position aligns closely with this approach.
The dynamic described in SW Newsmagazine’s earlier reporting remains intact. The same systems that drive user engagement also underpin the companies’ revenue. Until courts consistently uphold findings like those in Los Angeles and New Mexico—or regulators impose clearer constraints—the incentive to preserve those systems will remain strong.
Even so, these verdicts may represent the start of a broader shift. Much like early tobacco litigation that reshaped an industry, initial losses can accumulate into precedent that forces change over time. Whether that trajectory holds will depend on the outcome of appeals and whether other courts follow the path these juries have begun to chart.
Discover more from SW Newsmagazine
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
