A single story, a large verdict

Kaley was on YouTube at six and Instagram by nine. Now 20, she told a Los Angeles jury: "I can't, it's too hard to be without it." This week a jury sided with her. It found that Meta and Google’s YouTube designed products that helped create addiction and harmed Kaley and millions of other young people.

The California verdict awarded about $6 million in damages. It may sound small next to tech's balance sheets, but paired with a separate New Mexico ruling that ordered Meta to pay $375 million, the week felt like a turning point.

One juror put it plainly: "We wanted them to feel it. We wanted them to realise this was unacceptable."

Why this case matters beyond the money

  • The central theory is new for tech law: a social app can be a defective product that causes personal injury. That focuses on design choices rather than only on the content users post.
  • For years platforms leaned on legal shields that limit liability for third party content. This verdict targets the platform itself, not just what users upload.
  • Legal experts say this opens the door for more suits. Plaintiff lawyers are likely to treat this as proof that such cases can win.

The wider ripple effects

  • Stock prices for Meta and Alphabet fell after the rulings. Tech watchdogs declared "the era of big tech invincibility is over."
  • Political and public pressure is building. The UK prime minister mentioned potential bans for under-16s and limits on addictive features like infinite scroll and autoplay.
  • International moves are happening too. Indonesia will deactivate some under-16 accounts on high-risk platforms. Brazil passed an online safety law focused on compulsive use, and Australia already has measures aimed at children.

Families, whistleblowers, and campaigners speaking up

High-profile voices amplified the impact of the verdicts. Families who lost children and campaigners called for change. Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna died in 2023, said she sees parallels between those tragedies and the harms shown at trial.

Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineer who testified in these cases, says internal documents show the company knew about harms and downplayed them. He hopes the rulings force product redesigns, including reconsidering things like infinite scroll and like buttons.

How tech responded and what comes next

  • Both Meta and Google said they will appeal. Meta said it "respectfully disagree" with the decision and argued teen mental health is complex and cannot be pinned on a single app. Google said the case misunderstands YouTube, calling it a streaming platform rather than social media.
  • The legal battle is likely to continue and could reach the highest courts. Meanwhile, companies still carry political influence. On the same day as the LA verdict, top tech founders were named to a presidential advisory council.

The debate over "addiction"

Not everyone agrees on the language. Some researchers say very few people meet strict definitions of addiction when it comes to social media. Others point out that product designs clearly aim to keep people engaged for as long as possible, and that vulnerable users can be hurt more.

  • Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, testified that social media is not "clinically addictive."
  • Mark Griffiths, a behavioural addiction researcher, said platform features do not affect everyone equally, but can contribute to problematic use for those who are susceptible.

What lawmakers are hearing from kids

At a primary school visit in Bristol, children described long sessions of scrolling and trouble sleeping. Those on-the-ground testimonies are helping push lawmakers to act and to consider experiments like limited access for under-16s.

The bottom line

The recent rulings did not dismantle social media overnight, but they changed the legal conversation. Courts are now willing to look at whether product design itself can cause harm. Companies will appeal, and more cases are in the pipeline. Governments are already moving to curb youth exposure in different ways.

If these decisions stick, the practical changes could be significant: fewer addictive features, stricter age rules, and product design that must account for safety. As one former internal witness put it, the world now has a chance to enforce the idea that companies should help the people who use their services. The rest will depend on courts, regulators, and political will.