San Francisco Frontiers - US jury finds Meta, YouTube liable in social media addiction trial

The verdict hands plaintiffs in more than a thousand similar pending cases significant leverage -- and signals to the broader tech industry that juries are prepared to hold social media companies accountable for the mental health toll of their design choices.

The jury answered yes to all seven questions on verdict forms for both companies, finding that Meta -- the parent company of Facebook and Instagram -- and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

The jurors also found that both companies knew or should have known their services posed a danger to minors, that they failed to adequately warn users of that danger, and that a reasonable platform operator would have done so.

"Accountability has arrived," lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement.

A spokesman for Meta said they "respectfully disagree" with the verdict and would weigh their options.

- 'Existential threat' -

The panel assigned Meta 70 percent of the responsibility for the plaintiff's harm -- a $2.1 million share of the compensatory award -- and YouTube the remaining 30 percent, or $900,000.

Two further bellwether trials were expected to follow in the same Los Angeles courthouse, with their outcomes likely to determine whether social media companies fight on or move toward a broader settlement -- potentially including redesigning how their platforms work.

"$3 million is a slap on the wrist for companies like Meta and YouTube, which are two of the biggest ad sellers in the world," said Jasmine Engberg of Scalable, which tracks the social media industry.

"But if these companies are forced to redesign their products, that poses an existential threat to their business models."

Jurors further found that both companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud, a finding that set the stage for separate punitive damages, which lawyers argued in court following the verdict.

Luis Lee for YouTube apologized to the plaintiff, known in court documents by her initials K.G.M. and in court as Kaley, for the pain she suffered, but reminded jurors that punitive damages have to be inflicted in relation to the specific case and "not part of a social crusade."

Kaley began using YouTube at six, downloading the app on her iPod Touch to watch videos about lip gloss and an online kids game. She joined Instagram at nine, getting around a block her mother had put in place to keep her off the platform.

She told jurors that her near-constant social media use "really affected my self-worth," saying the apps led her to abandon hobbies, struggle to make friends and constantly measure herself against others.

In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier cast the case as a story of corporate greed.

He argued that features including infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, notifications and like counts were engineered to drive compulsive use among young people.

Meta and YouTube had maintained throughout that Kaley's mental health struggles had nothing to do with their platforms.

- Follows New Mexico -

Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt highlighted her turbulent relationship with her mother, playing jurors a recording that appeared to capture her mother yelling and cursing at her.

YouTube disputed how much time Kaley actually spent on its platform, with its attorney telling the court that usage records showed she averaged little more than a minute a day on the very features her lawyers called addictive.

The jury rejected both defenses across all seven questions on each verdict form.

A separate New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta liable for endangering children by making them vulnerable to predators on its platforms and other dangers.

The state had sought the maximum $2.2 billion in damages, but the jury awarded a lesser amount of $375 million.

Meta said it would appeal the verdict.

W.Thompson--SFF