Meta and YouTube Ordered to Pay $6 Million for Addictive Social Media: ‘Platform Design Negligence Leading to Compulsive Use’
A U.S. court jury has ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages, concluding that their addictive design features harmed young users and caused mental health issues.
On the 25th, a jury at the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Meta and YouTube must be held responsible for claims that their platforms are addictive and have harmed young users, acknowledging defects in the social media designers' products.
The lawsuit alleges that social media features such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, notifications, and auto-playing videos induce compulsive use, and similar lawsuits have already reached over 2,000 cases.
The plaintiffs claim that addiction to social media has led to various problems, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff stated that they became addicted to Google's YouTube and Meta's Instagram from a young age, attributing this to eye-catching designs, such as "infinite scrolling," that compel users to keep viewing new posts. The jury determined that Google and Meta were negligent in the design of the two apps and failed to warn of the risks.
In a statement, the plaintiffs' attorney stated, "Today's verdict is a referendum that accountability has arrived, from the jury to the entire industry."
The New York Times reported on the 25th, "These cases are being compared to the cases against Big Tobacco in the 1990s, when companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds were accused of concealing information about the harmful effects of tobacco." The newspaper added, "This ruling is the first of a series of trials expected this year, and the plaintiffs' legal team is testing a new legal theory that Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok caused personal injury through defective products."
KGM, a 20-year-old woman from California who won as the first plaintiff, created a YouTube account at age eight and joined Instagram, owned by Meta, at age nine. In the lawsuit, she claimed that she suffered from anxiety, depression, and body image issues due to her childhood addiction to social media sites. KGM's attorney cited "addictive design negligence," stating that Instagram and YouTube apps were "designed like 'digital casinos' to profit from addictive behavior."
Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google-owned YouTube all defended themselves by arguing that there is no clear scientific link between technology use and addiction, and claimed that the lawsuit required "strong evidence" that their products caused serious harm to young users.
In the lawsuit, social media companies cited Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a federal protection law, as their basis for the case, noting that it protects them from liability for posts users upload online.
Snap, owner of Snapchat, and TikTok reached a pre-trial settlement with the plaintiff, KGM, for an undisclosed amount.
Defendant Meta presented "personal medical records" during the trial of plaintiff KGM, arguing that her health issues stemmed from family abuse and confusion, and that social media addiction was not a primary focus of her treatment sessions. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram President Adam Mosseri rejected the plaintiffs' claim in court that Instagram is "clinically" addictive.
YouTube stated in the lawsuit that it is not a social media company and that its features were not designed to cause addiction.
Having lost, Meta announced it is reviewing legal options, while YouTube stated it plans to appeal.
The New York Times reported, "Thousands of individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general have filed similar lawsuits. This week's victory could open the door to a flood of similar claims," adding that "these cases test the argument that social media is designed to cause addiction, like cigarettes or casino slot machines."
The plaintiffs demanded monetary damages and design changes to the platforms to prevent addictive behavior.
In the KGM trial, Meta must pay a combined total of $4.2 million in compensatory and punitive damages, while YouTube must pay $1.8 million. In New Mexico, a jury that found Meta guilty of "violating state law" ordered the company to pay $375 million, and State Attorney General Raúl Torrez stated that he would seek additional damages and changes to the platform's design.
Reuters reported on the 25th, "Large U.S. tech companies have faced increasing criticism regarding child and youth safety over the past decade. The debate has now shifted to courts and state governments." The report added, "The U.S. Congress has not passed comprehensive legislation regulating social media, and according to the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 20 states enacted laws regarding social media use and children last year."
In the trial, the plaintiffs' legal team sought to prove that Meta and Google intentionally targeted children and made decisions that prioritized profit over safety. Reuters reported, “When Meta was asked about its decision to temporarily lift the ban on beauty filters, some within Meta warned that it could be harmful to teenage girls, and Zuckerberg said he decided to allow users to express themselves,” adding that “how freedom of expression and content censorship were reflected in companies’ decisions is likely to influence the appeal.”
The New York Times stated, “While the damages are merely a small defense for companies generating billions of dollars in revenue, the losses are substantial as attitudes toward social media companies around the world shift, and this victory opens the door to millions of other claims raised by social media users,” noting that “if companies are forced to change their products, it could harm their broader business models.”
The Yomiuri reported on the 26th, “In the United States, the spread of social media addiction among young people has emerged as a social problem, and thousands of similar lawsuits have arisen.” It added, “This lawsuit has garnered national attention as a precedent regarding app design issues, and this ruling will inevitably influence future judicial decisions, and the social media industry may be forced to change its business model.”
Yonhap News reported on the 26th, “Meta claimed that Kayleigh suffered from mental health issues unrelated to social media, and YouTube insisted that their platform is a video platform similar to TV, not social media; however, the jury ultimately determined that they were responsible.” The report continued, “Considering that this lawsuit is a ‘Bellwether trial’ that will determine the direction of social media litigation, if this verdict is finalized, there is a possibility that similar conclusions will follow in future lawsuits against social media companies. NPR reported that approximately 2,000 similar lawsuits filed by parents and school districts are currently underway across the U.S.”