1 hour ago
14
A California judge has refused to let Meta and Google hit the reset button on a $6 million jury verdict that found both companies liable for designing platforms so addictive they damaged a young user’s mental health. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on June 10, effectively cementing the first US jury decision to hold social media companies accountable for their design choices.
The original verdict, handed down on March 25 in the case K.G.M. v. Meta et al., split damages between the two tech giants: $4.2 million against Meta and $1.8 million against Google’s YouTube. The jury concluded that both companies negligently designed their platforms in ways that contributed to a young plaintiff’s social media addiction and related mental health problems.
The defenses that didn’t work
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, long the tech industry’s favorite suit of armor, was rejected as a defense. That law has historically protected platforms from liability for content posted by users. But the court drew a clear line: this case wasn’t about content moderation. It was about how the platforms themselves were engineered.
First Amendment arguments also fell flat. The companies essentially argued that their algorithmic recommendations constituted protected speech. The court disagreed, treating the design features, things like notification systems and recommendation algorithms, as products rather than expressions of editorial judgment.
Causation was another battleground. The defense teams argued that the plaintiff’s mental health issues couldn’t be directly tied to platform use, a reasonable-sounding argument that the jury simply didn’t buy. The evidence presented apparently painted a convincing enough picture of how features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmically curated feeds were deliberately built to maximize engagement at the expense of vulnerable users.
A legal trend that’s picking up speed
Just two weeks before Judge Kuhl’s decision, the US Supreme Court declined on May 26 to hear Meta’s appeal in a separate case brought by the Vermont attorney general. That lawsuit targeted Instagram’s addictive features specifically, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene means the case proceeds in lower courts.
The companies have consistently maintained that they prioritize user safety and invest heavily in protective features for younger users. Meta has pointed to parental controls and time-limit tools on Instagram. YouTube has highlighted its restricted mode and other safeguards for minors.
State attorneys general cases add another layer of pressure. Unlike individual lawsuits, these carry the weight of government enforcement and can result in injunctive relief, meaning courts could potentially order changes to how platforms are designed, not just financial penalties. With the Supreme Court declining to intervene in the Vermont case, that avenue of legal exposure remains wide open.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·