A California jury has delivered a significant verdict in a case examining whether social media platforms can be held responsible for harm linked to their design.
Jurors found that platforms owned by Meta and Google contributed to the mental health harm of a young woman who began using social media as a child. The claimant, now aged 20, was awarded $6m (£4.5m) in damages.
The ruling is already being described as a turning point in the growing legal debate around how social media platforms are designed, and whether companies should be accountable for their impact on young users.
Both companies have said they will appeal the decision.
The case at the centre of the debate
The claim was brought by a young woman known as Kaley. She alleged that early and prolonged use of social media led to addiction, depression and suicidal thoughts.
She began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at nine.
Her legal team argued that key features of social media platforms — including recommendation algorithms and endless content feeds — were deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, even among children.
Two other companies, Snapchat and TikTok, had originally been named in the case but reached settlements before the trial began.
How the jury divided responsibility
The jury concluded that the platforms played a role in the harm experienced by the claimant.
They awarded:
- $3m in compensatory damages
- $3m in punitive damages
Compensatory damages are intended to compensate the claimant for harm they suffered. While punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future.
Responsibility was divided between the companies, with Meta expected to pay the majority share (70%) and Google responsible for the remainder (30%).
The decision followed five weeks of testimony from executives, platform experts and former employees.
During the proceedings, Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg appeared in court and defended the company’s policies on youth safety and age restrictions.
Platforms reject the findings
Both companies have strongly criticised the verdict.
Meta said that teenage mental health is shaped by many factors and cannot be attributed to a single platform. The company also pointed to safeguards it has introduced in recent years, including new protections for teenage accounts.
Google said the ruling misunderstood the role of YouTube, describing it as a video platform rather than a social networking service.
Because both companies intend to appeal, the case may continue through the courts for some time.
Why the ruling is significant
The verdict is likely to have consequences beyond this single case.
Across the United States, numerous lawsuits are underway involving claims that social media platforms contributed to harm experienced by young users. Some of these cases involve families, schools and state authorities. Legal experts say the California verdict could influence how those cases are argued and how courts approach questions about platform design and corporate responsibility.
The wider child safety debate
The decision adds momentum to broader political debates about how social media platforms should be regulated.
In the UK, MPs recently rejected a proposal that would have banned under-16s from using social media. The amendment was debated as part of wider child welfare legislation.
But while lawmakers stopped short of introducing a nationwide ban, pressure on social media platforms is increasing. UK regulators are now demanding stronger protections for children across major platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube.
Following the vote, both Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have written to major social media companies – including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube – calling for urgent action.
The regulators are particularly focused on issues such as age verification, harmful algorithms and the risk of online grooming. Ofcom has also warned companies to stop carrying out product testing on children, including trials of new features or artificial intelligence systems that may affect younger users.
And, while MPs rejected the ban, the UK government has now launched a consultation on children’s use of social media.
The consultation will gather views from parents, young people and experts on whether stricter rules — including potential age restrictions — could improve online safety.
At Join the Claim, we monitor major international cases that could shape the future of digital accountability.
We are not currently aware of any UK group action directly equivalent to this social media addiction case. However, developments overseas often influence legal thinking and regulatory policy elsewhere.
As the appeals process unfolds, and as similar cases move through the courts, the legal landscape around social media responsibility may continue to evolve.
