Key Takeaways:
A Los Angeles jury on March 25 found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing addictive platforms that harmed a young user's mental health, awarding $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
The day before, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for knowingly failing to protect children from sexual exploitation on its platforms.
The verdicts represent the first time juries have treated social media platforms as defective products for their addictive design, a precedent that could reshape thousands of pending lawsuits.
Two juries delivered verdicts against Meta in two days. Both found the company liable. Neither is small.
On March 25, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design of their platforms, ruling that addictive features were a substantial factor in causing depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts in a plaintiff who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child. The jury awarded $6 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages, with Meta bearing 70% of responsibility and YouTube 30%.
The day before, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties for violating state consumer protection laws related to child sexual exploitation on its platforms. That case was the first jury trial to find Meta liable for activities on its platform.
The legal strategy in both cases bypassed Section 230 protections by targeting platform design rather than user-generated content. Internal Meta documents presented at trial showed executives describing strategies to attract pre-teen users, including one memo stating that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to keep returning to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform's minimum age requirement of 13.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in the LA trial in February. Instagram head Adam Mosseri pushed back on the concept of social media addiction, calling it problematic usage. The jury disagreed.
The $381 million in combined damages is financially negligible for companies worth trillions. The precedent is not. Thousands of similar lawsuits are pending from individuals, families, school districts, and state attorneys general. Both companies have said they will appeal.
Meta's stock dropped nearly 8% on Thursday. One juror told reporters after the verdict: we wanted them to feel it.
People Also Ask
Q: What were Meta and YouTube found liable for? A: Negligent design of addictive social media platforms that caused mental health harm to a young user, and failure to adequately warn users of the dangers.
Q: How much did Meta and YouTube have to pay? A: $6 million in the LA case (Meta 70%, YouTube 30%) and $375 million in the New Mexico case against Meta alone, totaling $381 million in two days.
Q: Will these verdicts affect other social media lawsuits? A: Yes. The LA case was a bellwether trial, and the verdicts could influence thousands of pending lawsuits from individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general.
Q: Did Section 230 protect Meta and YouTube? A: No. The plaintiff's legal team argued that addictive platform design, not user-generated content, caused the harm, a strategy that bypassed Section 230 protections.
DoorDash pays 8M gig workers for AI training (prior WYDE coverage)