Landmark Jury Verdicts Hold Meta and Google Liable for Harm to Minors

A series of recent jury verdicts in the United States have found technology companies Meta and Google liable for harm to minors, marking a significant shift in legal accountability for platform design and user safety.

In California, a jury determined that design features on Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube contributed to a young woman’s mental health struggles. In New Mexico, a separate jury found Meta violated state law by harming children’s mental health and concealing child sexual exploitation on its platforms. Both companies have stated they will appeal the verdicts.

California Verdict: Addictive Design and Mental Health Harm

In Los Angeles County Superior Court, a jury found Meta Platforms, Inc. (owner of Instagram) and Google LLC (owner of YouTube) liable for designing their platforms in a way that contributed to mental health harm in a minor user.

Case Details

The plaintiff, identified as KGM, a 20-year-old woman from California, filed a lawsuit in 2023 alleging she developed a compulsive use disorder after beginning to use YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. She reported that this use exacerbated existing mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.

Snap Inc. (Snapchat) and ByteDance (TikTok) were originally named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiff prior to the trial.

Jury Findings

After a month-long trial and nine days of deliberation, the jury determined that Meta and Google were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms. The jury found that the companies:

• Knew, or should have known, that their platforms posed a danger to minors.
• Failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks.
• Acted in a manner inconsistent with what a reasonable platform operator would have done.
• Committed negligence that was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages. After a second phase of deliberation, the jury recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages, concluding that the companies acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

Responsibility and Damages

The jury assigned 70% of the responsibility to Meta and 30% to Google. This apportionment was reflected in the recommended punitive damages: $2.1 million from Meta and $900,000 from YouTube. The judge retains final authority to approve the awarded damages.

Key Arguments

Plaintiff's Arguments:

The plaintiff’s legal team argued that specific platform design features—including infinite scroll, autoplay, persistent notifications, and beauty filters—were intentionally engineered to maximize user engagement and foster compulsive use in young people. They argued these features were borrowed from techniques used in the gambling and cigarette industries.

Defense Arguments:

• Meta: Argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges were independent of her social media use and related to her home life and family dynamics. Meta noted that her therapists had not identified social media as the primary cause. CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified that user safety has always been a company priority and that he does not aim to maximize user time.
• Google (YouTube): Argued that YouTube is a video streaming platform, not a social media site, and presented evidence showing the plaintiff’s usage time on the platform averaged just over a minute per day. The company highlighted its safety features and parental controls.

Broader Legal Strategy

The trial was designated as a "bellwether" test case, meaning it is intended to inform the resolution of thousands of similar lawsuits pending in state and federal courts. According to Moody's credit rating agency, over 4,000 cases targeting 166 companies for alleged addictive software design are currently in progress. Attorneys representing school districts, families, and state governments are also pursuing cases against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube, alleging that platform features are defective and cause harm to minors.

New Mexico Verdict: Failure to Protect Children from Exploitation and Mental Health Harm

In a Santa Fe state court, a jury found Meta liable for violating New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, ruling that the company knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed information about child sexual exploitation on its Facebook and Instagram platforms.

Case Details

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The case was built on an undercover operation where state investigators created social media accounts posing as users under 14. According to the Attorney General’s office, these accounts were "inundated with images and targeted solicitations" from adults seeking sexually explicit material. The operation resulted in three criminal arrests.

Jury Findings

After a nearly seven-week trial, the jury found that Meta:

• Made false or misleading statements about platform safety.
• Engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that exploited the vulnerabilities of children.
• Prioritized profits over user safety.
• Hid information about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
• Hid information about the impacts on child mental health.

Penalty

The jury identified thousands of violations and assessed a penalty of $375 million. This amount is less than one-fifth of the $2 billion the state had sought. Juror Linda Payton stated that the jury compromised on the estimated number of affected teenagers but opted for the maximum $5,000 penalty per violation.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

The trial included testimony from 40 witnesses, including Meta executives, platform engineers, former employees, and local school educators.

• Arturo Bejar: A former Meta engineering director testified that the company’s personalized algorithms, while effective for connecting interests, could also connect individuals with illicit interests. He referenced his own daughter’s experience with sexual solicitations on Instagram.
• Brian Boland: A former Meta Vice President of Partnerships stated he did not believe safety was a priority for CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-COO Sheryl Sandberg when he left the company in 2020.
• Adam Mosseri: Instagram’s head testified that Meta has implemented safety features for teens, despite their potential negative impact on growth and engagement.
• Internal Documents: The court reviewed internal Meta communications, including a report that CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s 2019 announcement to make Facebook Messenger end-to-end encrypted by default could impact the ability to report approximately 7.5 million child sexual abuse material reports to law enforcement. Meta later announced it would stop supporting end-to-end encrypted messaging in Instagram DMs due to low user adoption.

Defense Arguments

Meta’s attorneys argued that the company discloses risks and invests heavily in safety measures, with 40,000 personnel dedicated to platform safety. They stated that Meta designs its apps to facilitate connections, not to facilitate predators. The company also argued that the state’s investigation used hacked or stolen accounts and photos of real children, a claim the Attorney General dismissed as a "distraction."

Upcoming Proceedings

A second phase of the New Mexico trial is scheduled for May. A judge, not a jury, will determine whether Meta created a public nuisance, which could lead to court orders requiring the company to fund public programs addressing the harms and to implement changes to its platforms, including effective age verification and enhanced protections for minors.

Company Responses

Both Meta and Google have stated their disagreement with the verdicts and announced plans to appeal.

• Meta Spokesperson: "We disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We remain focused on our longstanding work to build protections like Teen Accounts that help teens stay safe online, while giving parents simple controls to support their families." The company also stated that "teen mental health is complex and cannot be attributed to a single application."

• Google Spokesperson (Jose Castaneda): "This case misinterprets YouTube. YouTube is a streaming platform, not a social media site. We have built YouTube responsibly." Google also emphasized its investment in safety features and parental controls.

Broader Legal and Regulatory Context

Legal Protections

Historically, tech companies have been shielded from liability for user-posted content under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act and First Amendment protections. However, in both the California and New Mexico cases, prosecutors successfully argued that the companies should be held accountable for the design and monetization of their platforms, rather than the specific content posted by users. This legal strategy of treating platforms as "defective products" has allowed these cases to proceed to trial.

Related Actions

• Ongoing Lawsuits: Hundreds of cases from individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general are pending against social media platforms. A multidistrict litigation trial involving six public school districts is scheduled for summer 2025 in Oakland, California.
• State Legislation: At least 20 states have enacted laws addressing social media use by children, including regulations on phone use in schools and requirements for age verification. New York and California have passed laws banning "addictive" social media feeds for teens.
• Federal Legislation: The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which aims to require platforms to prevent harms like mental health disorders and protect minors’ data, passed the Senate in 2024 and is awaiting action in the House.
• International Context: In Australia, the government has enacted laws banning social media for users under 16 and has expanded the definition of age-restricted social media platforms to include those using algorithms, endless feeds, and time-limited features.

Emerging Legal Areas

Beyond social media, similar lawsuits are being filed against developers of video games, online gambling applications, and artificial intelligence chatbots. A lawsuit filed in Massachusetts accuses sports betting sites DraftKings and FanDuel of fostering gambling addiction through design features that encourage compulsive use.

Expert Analysis and Potential Implications

Legal experts have drawn comparisons between these cases and the "Big Tobacco" lawsuits of the 1990s, suggesting the potential for long-term industry change.

"These cases mark new legal territory, potentially requiring platforms to reconsider their emphasis on engagement." — Nikolas Guggenberger, assistant professor of law

"Juries are willing to impose liability, and judges are less inclined to give social media defendants the benefit of the doubt." — Eric Goldman, legal expert

On Potential Outcomes

Analysts note that while the current financial damages are small relative to company valuations, the verdicts signal a shift in accountability. Some analysts predict companies may implement more defensive default settings, stricter age verification, and new alerts to encourage users to disengage. Others caution that overly broad liability standards could affect smaller social networks and harm marginalized communities that rely on social media for connection.

On Social Media and Mental Health

Research on social media’s impact on adolescents indicates a complex relationship, with some studies suggesting moderate use is associated with better well-being. A 2025 Pew Research Center poll found that 48% of teens believe social media harms people their age, up from 32% in 2022. Researchers have identified specific design features—including infinite scroll, autoplay, and notifications—as contributing to compulsive use patterns.