Social media platforms Instagram and YouTube have a design defect, which means they are addictive, a jury in the United States has ruled.
The Los Angeles jury took nearly nine days to reach its verdict in the landmark case brought by a woman known as KGM against social media platforms. It awarded US$3 million (A$4.3 million) in damages, with Meta (owner of Instagram) being 70% responsible and Google (owner of YouTube) 30%. The jury later awarded a further US$3 million in punitive damages.
Both TikTok and Snap settled on confidential terms before the six-week trial commenced.
This is Meta’s second big loss in the US courts this week, with a New Mexico jury finding the company guilty on March 24 of concealing information about the risks of child sexual exploitation and the harmful effects of its platforms on children’s mental health.
KGM’s case is the first of its kind, but won’t be the last: it is one of more than 20 “bellwether” trials due to go to court soon. These are essentially test cases used to gauge juries’ reactions and set a legal precedent.
As such, the verdict is set to have far-reaching ripple effects. It could be big tech’s big tobacco moment, with thousands more similar cases waiting in the wings.
Machines designed to addict
KGM – now 20 years old – said she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and allegedly developed compulsive use patterns, including up to 16 hours in a single day on Instagram. The platforms’ design features, she argued, contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.
Her case argued that Meta and YouTube made deliberate design choices – for example, “infinite scroll” – to make their platforms more addictive to children in order to boost profits. It alleged the companies borrowed heavily from the behavioural and neurobiological techniques used by poker machines and exploited by the cigarette industry to maximise youth engagement and drive advertising revenue.
KGM’s lawyer Mark Lanier told the jurors:
These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.
Lanier cited an internal Meta study called “Project Myst”. This allegedly found that children who had experienced “adverse effects” were most likely to get addicted to Instagram, and that parents were powerless to stop the addiction.
The moment [KGM] was locked into the machine, her mom was locked out.
The jury heard that Meta’s internal communications compared the platform’s effects to pushing drugs and gambling. The jury found this internal awareness was the kind of corporate knowledge that supports liability.
In addition, a YouTube memo reportedly described “viewer addiction” as a goal, and an Instagram employee wrote the company was staffed by “basically pushers”.
Mark Lanier drew a direct parallel to tobacco litigation, arguing that where there is corporate knowledge, deliberate targeting, and public denial, liability follows.
Pointing the finger at the family
Meta argued KGM faced significant challenges before she ever used social media, and that the evidence did not support reducing a lifetime of hardship to a single factor.
Meta’s lawyer highlighted KGM’s family dynamics as responsible for her mental health struggles, and argued that social media may have actually provided a healthy outlet for her when she faced difficulties at home.
Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence for the defence:
I’m not trying to maximise the amount of time people spend every month.
On safety tools Meta added in recent years, Zuckerberg said:
I always wish we could have gotten there sooner.
In closing arguments, YouTube’s lawyer argued there was not a single mention of an addiction to YouTube in KGM’s medical records.
The companies centred part of their defence on Section 230 protections, arguing they cannot be held liable for content posted on their platforms.
However, the judge instructed the jury that the way content is delivered is a separate consideration to what the content is. This limited Meta and Google’s ability to rely on Section 230 protections.
Challenging a legal protection
This was one of the first cases against big tech, which was a jury trial – something companies have previously been keen to avoid.
For example, in June 2024, a few months ahead of a scheduled jury trial in the Department of Justice’s challenge to Google’s advertising technology monopoly, Google paid more than US$2 million (A$2.8 million) to the Department of Justice.
This was triple the damages claimed, plus interest.
In the US, a jury trial is only required when monetary damages are at stake. By paying the full damages amount upfront in that case, Google eliminated the damages claim and with it, the right to a jury.
Until now, US courts have largely denied motions that focused on design.
This includes infinite scroll and notification systems. The distinction between “platform design” and “content curation” has been central to how courts have analysed First Amendment arguments in this litigation.
The effect of the jury’s verdict in KGM’s case is to demonstrate the limitations of the Section 230 protection.
The first – but not the last
This is the first big tech case, on a global basis, that has examined addiction as a cause of damage. Other cases have focused on breaches of law.
For example, in the case in New Mexico against Meta, the jury concluded the company made false or misleading statements and engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that exploited children’s vulnerability and inexperience. It identified thousands of individual violations, resulting in a total penalty of US$375 million (A$539 million).
KGM’s case paves the way for the many other actions seeking damages from social media platforms for the effects of addiction.
There is logic for these cases to be heard concurrently in a class action in the US. The verdict could also be used as the basis for both class actions and individual actions on a global basis.
Meta and Google have said separately they plan to appeal the verdict.
- is a Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
