Jury finds Instagram and YouTube liable in a landmark social media addiction trial

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A jury found Meta and YouTube liable on Wednesday. first case of its kind This decision aimed to hold social media platforms responsible for harm caused to children using their services and awarded the plaintiff $3 million in damages.

After deliberating more than 40 hours over nine days, jurors in California found that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms. The jury also found that each company’s negligence was a significant factor in causing the company harm. The plaintiff is a 20-year-old woman Dr. said that he was addicted to social media in his childhood and that this addiction worsened his mental health problems. This second decision A lawsuit was filed against Meta this week after a jury in New Mexico found that the company harmed the mental health and safety of children in violation of state law.

The multimillion-dollar verdict will grow even larger if the jury decides that the companies acted in bad faith, oppressively or fraudulently. This means jurors will hear new evidence and then decide on punitive damages.

Meta and Google-owned YouTube issued statements disagreeing with the decision and vowing to explore their legal options, including an appeal.

Google spokesman Jose Castañeda said in the company’s statement that “this case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly created streaming platform, not a social media site.”

The jury found that Meta and YouTube knew that the design or operation of their platforms was dangerous or likely to be dangerous when used by a minor. They also said the platforms failed to adequately warn of the danger, further contributing to the plaintiff’s harm.

Only nine of 12 jurors had to agree on the allegations against each defendant. Two jurors consistently disagreed with the other 10 members on whether the companies should be held liable.

Jurors also found that Meta was more liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff, identified by the initials KGM. The jury said that Meta bears 70% of the responsibility and YouTube bears the remaining 30%.

The remaining two defendants in the case were Meta and YouTube. TikTok and Snap reached an agreement before the trial begins.

For nearly a month, jurors heard arguments, testimony and evidence from the attorneys and heard from KGM, or as her attorneys called her during the trial, Kaley and Meta leaders. Mark Zuckerberg And Adam Mosseri. YouTube’s CEO Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

Kaley says she started using YouTube at the age of 6 and Instagram at the age of 9. “all day long” on social media as a child.

The attorneys representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the negligence of the respective defendants was a significant factor in Kaley’s harm. They pointed out certain design features that they said were designed to “hook” younger users, such as the “endless” nature of streams that allow for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and notifications.

Jurors were told to disregard the content of the posts and videos Kaley watched because tech companies are protected from legal liability for posted content. Chapter 230 Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Meta has consistently maintained that Kaley’s mental health struggles are not linked to her social media use, often pointing to her tumultuous home life. Meta also said that “none of her therapists identified social media as the cause of her mental health issues.” But plaintiffs didn’t have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles; he didn’t just have to prove that social media was a “significant factor” in harming him.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her YouTube usage and the nature of the platform. They argued that YouTube is not a type of social media, but a video platform similar to television, and pointed out that YouTube usage decreases with age. According to its data, it has spent an average of one minute a day watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. Launched in 2020, YouTube Shorts offers short-form vertical videos with an “infinite scrolling” feature that plaintiffs argue is addictive.

Lawyers representing both platforms have consistently pointed out the security features and guardrails both platforms have in place for people to monitor and customize their usage.

The case, along with several other cases, was randomly selected as a lead case; This means its outcome could affect the course of thousands of similar lawsuits filed against social media companies.

Although the cases in Los Angeles and New Mexico both focused on harms to children, there were important differences between the two. New Mexico’s lawsuit was filed in 2023 by State Attorney General Raúl Torrez. State investigators built their case by pretending to be a child on social media and then documenting the sexual harassment they received and Meta’s response. The jury was asked to determine whether Meta violated New Mexico’s consumer protection law.

The Los Angeles lawsuit was filed by a single plaintiff against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. Once settled, the latter two argued that Meta and YouTube were addictive by design and that they specifically targeted younger users.