What the LA Addiction Verdict Means for Social Media

A jury in Los Angeles has delivered a major blow to social media companies, finding that Meta (which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp) and Google (owner of YouTube) deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive. 

This verdict signals a new era of accountability for the design choices and features of products.

The lawsuit was brought by a 20-year-old woman, identified as K.G.M., who claimed the platforms caused her childhood addiction and subsequent mental health issues. 

She was awarded US$3m in damages. 

The jury assigned 70% of the responsibility for the harm to Meta and 30% to YouTube.

The court is still considering other forms of damages that could increase the total payout to US$30m.

Case details

The young woman began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine. 

By the age of 10, she experienced anxiety and depression, eventually being diagnosed with body dysmorphia – a condition where people worry about their physical appearance and see themselves differently than others do. 

Her legal team focused on specific design elements, such as Instagram’s infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations and auto-play videos, arguing these features were intentionally designed to hook young users and maintain addiction.

In its defence, Meta claimed K.G.M.’s mental health challenges were due to familial abuse and turmoil. 

YouTube argued that it should not be considered a social media company and that its features were not intended to be addictive.

The addictive nature of social media 

This verdict represents a critical turning point for social media platform providers by establishing a precedent for accountability. 

The fact that two other major platforms, Snap and TikTok, settled with K.G.M. before the trial underscores the industry-wide risk. 

This LA case followed a separate verdict just a day earlier, where a jury found Meta liable for endangering children and exposing them to predators and explicit material.

K.G.M.’s lawyers summarised the verdict’s significance, stating it “sends an unmistakable message that no company is above accountability when it comes to our children”.

As similar lawsuits against big tech are expected this year, this ruling is likely to be a major factor, potentially forcing companies to change their products and face significant financial losses. 

Joseph VanZandt, a lawyer representing K.G.M., says: “This is the first time in history a jury has heard testimony by executives and seen internal documents that we believe prove these companies chose profits over children.”

The case was overseen by Judge Carolyn B. Juhl. 

Meta, however, remains opposed to the finding, stating: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options”.