Jury reaches verdict in social media addiction trial, finds Meta liable for harm to children

[midian182]

Update (March 25): A New Mexico jury has delivered one of the first major rulings in the growing wave of social media addiction lawsuits, finding Meta liable for misleading the public about platform safety and exposing children to harm. After a nearly seven-week trial, jurors concluded the company violated state consumer protection laws through deceptive and "unconscionable" practices, with thousands of violations adding up to $375 million in penalties.

State officials argued Meta ignored internal warnings about risks to young users while prioritizing engagement and profit. The company says it will appeal, maintaining that it discloses risks and actively works to limit harmful content.

The original story follows below:

The jury in the closely watched Los Angeles social media addiction trial told Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl on Monday that it was having trouble reaching a consensus on one of the two remaining defendants. The case is an important one for the industry as it centers on whether the design of major social platforms harms young users.

Jurors did not say whether the holdout relates to Meta or YouTube, but Kuhl told them to keep deliberating and warned that if they cannot reach a verdict, that part of the case will have to be retried before a new jury.

One note read aloud in court asked: "The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant, do you have any advice on how to move forward?"

Last Friday, the jury sent the court a question about how to calculate damages, a sign that at least some jurors had already moved beyond the question of liability.

According to reports on Monday's hearing, that earlier note suggested enough of the panel believed one or both platforms may have been negligently or harmfully designed and should have warned users about the risks. The jury went home without a verdict and is due to resume deliberations on Tuesday.

Related: Judge warns smart glasses wearers of contempt charges as Zuckerberg testifies in Meta trial

K.G.M. v. Meta et al. is not just another argument over harmful content showing up in feeds. The case is trying to establish that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and recommendation algorithms can function like a defective product when they are tuned to maximize engagement in children.

That distinction matters because Judge Kuhl previously ruled that Section 230 does not automatically shield the companies from claims tied to product design, leaving jurors to decide whether the apps' mechanics, rather than just the material posted on them, caused harm.

Snap had also been part of the trial before it settled in January, and TikTok exited before opening arguments, leaving Meta and YouTube to face the full impact of a case that could influence thousands of related lawsuits from parents, school districts, and attorneys general.

The plaintiff, now 20-year-old California woman Kaley G.M., testified that Instagram and YouTube fueled depression, body-image issues, and suicidal thoughts that began when she was young.

The defense argued that social media is not legally comparable to tobacco or narcotics, and that family turmoil and other offline factors were the main reasons behind her struggles.

Permalink to story:

Jury reaches verdict in social media addiction trial, finds Meta liable for harm to children

 

[user556]

Stop blaming the victim, it's not addiction, it's bullying and manipulation. The platforms, and their tracking and push algorithms, are very much to blame.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Where are the parents? It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children. From my point of view, YouTube and social media is not designed to be nearly as addictive as video games were/are. I would argue these ARE designed specifically to maximize engagement with children. Are we gonna see Nintendo pay for developing the Game Boy series originally and the Switch now? No we aren't. Parents can and should monitor children's usage of technology.

The reason the lawsuit targets social media is because everyone in the world use these so they're so big. But bigger is not always badder, nor directed at children.

 

[NumberNine]

Won't someone think of the children?!
They seem to be struggling to do so.

Those little ankle biters are just so darn dumb and profitable! They have no bills, no self control, and no emotional awareness, the perfect customer!

 

[brucek]

I feel sad and depressed when I read about what seems like the 10th plane crash in a month. But that's not the fault of the reporter, editor, or newspaper publisher, because people generally feel that news reporting is important and necessary, whatever the consequences may be.

I don't know enough about the argument against the socials to know how much blame they should shoulder. If there is discovery of internal documents that laid out alternative plans that provided all the same useful social networking functionality while avoiding potential harms and they decided not to do it to save a few bucks here and there, I could see a jury holding them accountable to their own analysis. But as someone who grew up before social networking, I also remember some people spent plenty of time on the phone gossiping, getting anxious and depressed about the perceived actions of others, dealing with all the doubts of growing up, etc. without any social networking whatsoever. How much has really changed?

 

[MasterAce]

I know I have trouble putting youtube away and going to sleep in the night, and I'm in the fourties. I had to uninstall instagram because it kept fueling my bad habits. At the same time, there is some social pressure to be in social media, sports club activities etc.

I dont think anybody knew what the algorithmic feed would be like, except for these companies who apparently ignored their own internal reports. I hated the day when insta feed started showing "other" stuff, and there was no opt-out. If they already knew there were signs of addictive behaviour and still turned it on without an opt-out, that does sound deliberate.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

This trial in some way may now reinforce other Countries to impose their own restriction and perhaps censorship of social media in their Country. It's a double edged sword.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Where are the parents? It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children. From my point of view, YouTube and social media is not designed to be nearly as addictive as video games were/are. I would argue these ARE designed specifically to maximize engagement with children. Are we gonna see Nintendo pay for developing the Game Boy series originally and the Switch now? No we aren't. Parents can and should monitor children's usage of technology.

The reason the lawsuit targets social media is because everyone in the world use these so they're so big. But bigger is not always badder, nor directed at children.

wow ... chatgtp much while being a lobbyist for media firms?? social media is more destructive than meth or alcohol and just as addicting.

 

[R00sT3R]

More money for the laywers...the real soul sucking vampire class.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

More reasons for them to force ID verification on us to "protect children".

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

wow ... chatgtp much while being a lobbyist for media firms?? social media is more destructive than meth or alcohol and just as addicting.

I don’t use social media and I don’t find it addictive at all when I do use it lol. And as for your first claim, see my first answer.

The fact that you answered so flippantly says something about your own biases though. You went straight to accusing me of personally being paid by them. If I was as flippant as you, I would go straight to accusing you of being a bad parent who wants to blame your own failings on social media companies, but I know nothing about you lol.

You didn’t even address my points:
1. Are parents the ones responsible for their children’s use of technology?
2. Are video games in fact more addictive than social media?

 

[Win7user]

So, the States are now raising other people's children? Where, are the parents in all this? When, I was growing up, my mother and father told me what was up. What I could do, and what I couldn't do. This, country sure has changed.

 

[R00sT3R]

So, the States are now raising other people's children? Where, are the parents in all this? When, I was growing up, my mother and father told what was up. What I could do, and what I couldn't do. This, country sure has changed.

When you were growing up the country wouldn't have elected a rapist, crook and protector of peadophiles as President...twice.

So, yes, the country sure has changed....

 

[DrSuess]

More reasons for them to force ID verification on us to "protect children".

ID verification is just another means for them to collect more information on everyone. It may very well help children but it will likely hurt adults more as a lot of these sites are contemplating using facial ID. Facial ID will allow their AIs to be more invasive in everyone's life.

If Techspot ever rolls out an enhanced age verification system it will likely be the last day I ever use the site.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Main brain is developing allergy to some terms. "Children protection" and "Counter terrorism" are in Top10.

Anything wrapped around those has to be an Ultimate good and deliver Peace to World. Has it not?


BTW ... Where are parents of those children. Child Protection Service is able to make life a living hell for far less negligence.

 

[Puiu]

Where are the parents? It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children. From my point of view, YouTube and social media is not designed to be nearly as addictive as video games were/are. I would argue these ARE designed specifically to maximize engagement with children. Are we gonna see Nintendo pay for developing the Game Boy series originally and the Switch now? No we aren't. Parents can and should monitor children's usage of technology.

The reason the lawsuit targets social media is because everyone in the world use these so they're so big. But bigger is not always badder, nor directed at children.

"It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children." - they literally are doing that. just not the kind of drugs you used as a kid.

 

[ZedRM]

The jury should add a couple of zeroes behind the award judgement.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

... just not the kind of drugs you used as a kid.

The most powerful drugs I have got my hands on as kid were sugar and occasionally chocolate.
Tea was colored water (like coffee from Starbucks) with a lot of sugar and little bit of lemmon.
Coffee (the real thing from coffee beans with caffeine inside) was expensive and even adults drank more than often fake made from rye, barley and chicory.

 

[Loadedaxe]

The recent verdict holding Meta liable for harm to children is a wake up call...but not just for tech companies.

Yes, platforms should absolutely be held accountable. Their apps are designed to keep users scrolling, and kids are especially vulnerable to that. Endless feeds, notifications, and algorithm driven content can have real effects on mental health.

In reality though, this isn’t only on the companies.

Parents play a role too.

Kids don’t naturally know how to manage screen time or handle the pressures of social media. That’s something they need to be taught. Just like we wouldn’t let them eat junk food all day without guidance or binge watch TV, we can’t hand them a smartphone and expect them to be responsible with it.

The goal isn’t to ban social media, it’s to guide how it’s used. Social media is here to stay, it is what it is.

At the end of the day, protecting the kids of today in the digital world is a shared responsibility. Tech companies need to design safer platforms, but parents still have to stay present, aware, and involved, and learn to say no.

Blaming one side alone won’t fix this problem, social media and parenting are both to blame.

 

[URUKHAI]

Where are the parents? It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children. From my point of view, YouTube and social media is not designed to be nearly as addictive as video games were/are. I would argue these ARE designed specifically to maximize engagement with children. Are we gonna see Nintendo pay for developing the Game Boy series originally and the Switch now? No we aren't. Parents can and should monitor children's usage of technology.

The reason the lawsuit targets social media is because everyone in the world use these so they're so big. But bigger is not always badder, nor directed at children.

Actually, if you read some of the leading studies, social media addiction, like video game addiction, is closely linked to the same causes present in gambling addiction. While the platforms were not initially designed to foment addiction, it is easy to see that the correlation between the two for humans, especially children and teens, is obvious.

The dopamine, seratonin need fulfillment coupled with the need for social animals to actually be social in an ever-increasingly isolated technology-driven society seems obvious. Then you have the habit of parents who are either also addicted to their screens readily parking their kids on them as well and you have a dissociative spiral with no end. Which is also ripe for criminals.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

"It's not like tech companies are giving drugs to children." - they literally are doing that. just not the kind of drugs you used as a kid.

Again, I ask about video games. They were literally designed for that purpose and we hear nothing about them being targeted by lawsuits despite them being widely accessible to children for 3 decades. I seriously doubt that social media is much more addictive to children than video games are.

 

[Puiu]

Again, I ask about video games. They were literally designed for that purpose and we hear nothing about them being targeted by lawsuits despite them being widely accessible to children for 3 decades. I seriously doubt that social media is much more addictive to children than video games are.

Video games have been the target every single year of every single decade since they've existed. And they're also the first to be blamed in any situation that involves a minor.

Epic Games, Roblox, Microsoft and Mojang (Minecraft), Nintendo, Sony, Activision Blizzard, Valve and MANY others have all been in recent years hit with lawsuits for "game addiction". It's just not as big as the news of Meta loosing such a big case.

 

[Endymio]

Blaming one side alone won’t fix this problem, social media and parenting are both to blame.

What we need is the legal equivalent of a reverse class action suit. That way Meta could sue the parents of every child who used Facebook, for allowing said offspring to abuse their platform and thus damage their business image.

 

[Loadedaxe]

What we need is the legal equivalent of a reverse class action suit. That way Meta could sue the parents of every child who used Facebook, for allowing said offspring to abuse their platform and thus damage their business image.

That would surely make a very interesting article!