Meta, Google Ordered to Pay at Least $3 Million in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
Editors carefully fact-check all Consumer Notice, LLC content for accuracy and quality.
Consumer Notice, LLC has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
In a verdict that could influence thousands of other lawsuits, the companies behind Facebook, Instagram and YouTube have been found negligent in a historic social media trial.
Meta and Google were ordered to pay at least $3 million to a woman who said that she developed serious mental health issues after using the companies’ products. The Los Angeles jury will now determine what punitive damages the social media giants may owe as well, which could significantly inflate the verdict.
The woman, identified as KGM, claimed that she began using social media at a young age and that the apps worsened her mental health after she became addicted.
The outcome of the trial had been closely watched, with thousands of other social media lawsuits pending over claims that the companies behind popular social media platforms designed their products to be intentionally addictive.
TikTok and Snapchat were set to be part of the trial, but agreed to confidential settlements before it began.
Meta has been ordered to pay 70% of the $3 million verdict, with Google owing the other 30%.
Landmark Social Media Trial Verdict Comes Following Jury Struggles
It took nearly two weeks after closing arguments for the jury to reach a verdict, in part because of the case’s complexity. The trial included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and the head of Instagram, pushing back on claims that their platforms can be addictive.
The jury informed the judge on Monday that it was struggling to come to a verdict on one of the defendants.
According to the Associated Press, both defendants leaned on starkly different defenses. Meta argued that KGM faced issues in her life that could be responsible for her mental health concerns before ever using social media. Google, however, focused on arguments that its YouTube platform does not qualify as social media and is also not addictive.
The jurors eventually determined that both companies had been negligent. While $3 million on its own is not a massive verdict, the amount the jury awards in punitive damages will play a big role in how this case influences others like it.
“Punitive damages are meant to punish companies when their conduct goes beyond just making a simple mistake. These types of damages are reserved for the most egregious conduct and are intended to deter companies from repeating it in the future,” said Whitney Ray Di Bona, attorney and consumer safety advocate with Drugwatch.com. “The jury has unequivocally found that both Meta and YouTube acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Now, they will deliberate further to decide on the appropriate punishment for their behavior.”
Why the Social Media Addiction Trial Matters
This Los Angeles trial is critical because it is the first of thousands of pending cases to go before a jury. It was viewed as a bellwether trial, meaning that its outcome is closely watched as a potential indicator of the strength of these cases.
It gives both sides a chance to see how their arguments hold up before a jury. The loss for Meta or Google could force those companies to rethink their strategies, given the many other lawsuits they are facing. It could also influence wider settlement negotiations.
More of these cases are expected to go to trial in the near future. One upcoming trial involves similar claims of addiction, but has been brought by school districts.
