What a $6 Million Verdict Against Meta & Google Means for Thousands of Other Social Media Lawsuits

In a historic verdict, the makers of Instagram and YouTube have been ordered to pay $6 million to a woman who claimed that those platforms worsened her mental health. The verdict is significant, as it’s the first time these companies have been held liable for the potential mental harms tied to the use of their apps.

With many similar cases pending and more trials expected, here is what that verdict could mean for the future of social media addiction lawsuits.

Social Media Lawsuit Victory Establishes Roadmap for Other Cases

The social media trial, which was held in Los Angeles, was viewed as a bellwether for wider litigation.
Thousands of similar lawsuits are already active in federal and state courts, with more being filed. The base arguments in the trial were that the companies behind popular social media platforms designed their products to be intentionally addictive, prioritizing profits and increased engagement over user safety.

The plaintiff of the trial, identified as Kaley, began using YouTube when she was six years old and Instagram when she was nine. These platforms quickly consumed her life. She testified that she used the apps all day, every day.

She experienced severe mental health issues, including depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

Mark Zuckerberg and the head of Instagram both testified in the trial, pushing back on claims that their app could be addictive.

But the jury ultimately sided with Kaley, determining that Meta and YouTube had both been negligent and deliberately designed addictive platforms.

This is a massive boon for cases making similar arguments. It signals that their cases could have similar success in front of juries. It may also force the tech companies behind these products to rethink their legal strategy as lawsuits mount.

“Since a jury found these platforms negligent for mental health harms, it could affect settlement talks in thousands of ongoing cases,” said Whitney Ray Di Bona, attorney and consumer safety advocate with Drugwatch.com. “More importantly, this decision may push social media companies to reconsider addictive features and add safety warnings to better protect users, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.”

The makers of TikTok and Snapchat were also originally set to be a part of Kaley’s trial, but agreed to confidential settlements before it could begin.

Despite Win, Low Verdict and Jury Deliberations Worth Noting for Future Lawsuits

The social media lawsuit verdict was undoubtedly a win for the thousands of people who have filed lawsuits and others who may file in the future. But it wasn’t a fully resounding victory.

The $6 million verdict was far lower than lawyers had hoped for, but it’s still a watershed moment as social media companies are being held liable for mental harm tied to their products. But for these multibillion-dollar companies, a $6 million verdict may not be steep enough to encourage legitimate change.

Courthouse News Service reported that one juror said they considered a larger verdict so that the social media companies would “feel it,” but worried about handing over so much money to a single person.
Meta and Google both announced that they are appealing the verdict, which is standard in these situations.

The jury deliberations, which lasted more than a week and were not unanimous, are also noteworthy. At one point, the jurors reported that they were struggling to come to an agreement on one of the two defendants.

In the end, the final result was not unanimous. Of the 12 jurors, 10 found the companies negligent.
More trials are expected in the near future, and the social media giants will look to turn the tide and notch some wins, which could muddy the future of the litigation. But if people who have filed lawsuits earn more victories, these companies could eventually be encouraged to negotiate wider settlements.