Landmark Verdicts Declare Social Media Platforms Deliberately Addictive
In a watershed moment for the technology industry, US courts have delivered consecutive blows against social media giants, ruling that platforms like Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube were intentionally designed to be addictive. These verdicts have sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and ignited a global conversation about corporate responsibility and child protection online.
The Case That Could Change Everything
At the center of what campaigners are calling the tech industry's "big tobacco moment" is Kaley, a 20-year-old woman who began using YouTube at age six and Instagram by nine. Testifying in Los Angeles Superior Court, she described how social media addiction has dominated her life for more than a decade. "I can't, it's too hard to be without it," she told the jury of five men and seven women who ultimately vindicated her position.
The California jury found both Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately engineering addictive products used by Kaley and millions of other young people. Although Kaley's case focused on her personal suffering—including depression beginning at age 10 and self-harm—she became a figurehead for a much broader legal battle. "We wanted them to feel it," one juror explained. "We wanted them to realise this was unacceptable."
A Week of Legal Setbacks for Big Tech
The California verdict came just days after Meta was ordered to pay $375 million by a New Mexico court for misleading consumers about platform safety. That jury found Meta's platforms contained features that "enabled paedophiles and predators to engage in child sexual exploitation" and were intentionally designed to addict young users.
While the $6 million damages in the California case were relatively modest, the implications are enormous. Meta, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok now face thousands of similar lawsuits across US courts, testing whether their platforms were deliberately designed to foster addiction. Should they lose these cases, the financial consequences could be crippling even for trillion-dollar corporations.
The Tech Oversight Project declared: "The era of big tech invincibility is over." Even Prince Harry weighed in, stating: "The truth has been heard and precedent has been set." The share prices of both Meta and Alphabet, Google's parent company, fell following the announcements.Global Regulatory Momentum Builds
Internationally, governments are accelerating efforts to curb big tech's influence on children. Indonesia has followed Australia in mandating the deactivation of "high-risk" social media accounts belonging to children under 16. Brazil recently enacted online safety legislation to protect children against compulsive use, while in the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded to the Los Angeles verdict by promising stronger protections.
"We need to do more to protect children," Starmer said, citing potential measures including a social media ban for under-16s and restrictions on addictive features like infinite scrolling and autoplay videos.
Matt Kaufman, head of safety at gaming platform Roblox, observed: "For a long time governments deferred to the EU and to the United States to set internet policy. Now everybody else is catching up and saying: 'We want to do things that are right for our country.'"
A New Legal Theory Emerges
The Los Angeles case represents a significant legal breakthrough because it advances the theory that a software product—specifically a social media app—can be defective and cause personal injury. Until now, tech platforms have been protected by Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which absolves companies of liability for user-generated content. The California verdict instead found liability with the platform design itself.
"This is essentially a call to arms to plaintiff lawyers," said Jessica Nall, a partner at San Francisco law firm Withers. "They've been successful at least once in getting a multimillion-dollar verdict against tech. The message is: 'Let's go for more.'"
Campaigners are drawing explicit parallels with the tobacco industry lawsuits that forced cigarette manufacturers to overhaul marketing practices and pay multibillion-dollar settlements.
Tech Companies Push Back
Meta, valued at $1.4 trillion, has announced it will appeal the verdict, stating: "We respectfully disagree with the jury decision. Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app." Google similarly plans to appeal, arguing the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site." The matter could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
Despite the legal setbacks, tech executives retain considerable political influence. On the same day as the Los Angeles verdict, former President Donald Trump appointed Mark Zuckerberg and former Google executive Sergey Brin to his science and technology council.
Personal Tragedies Fuel Campaign for Change
Esther Ghey, mother of murdered British teenager Brianna Ghey, sees disturbing parallels between her daughter's story and Kaley's experience. Brianna, who was transgender, became isolated through heavy social media use and suffered from anxiety and body dysmorphia before her death in 2023.
"Finally, I think this is going to create a shift," Ghey told reporters after the verdicts.
Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly died from what a coroner concluded was an act of self-harm influenced by "the negative effects of online content," has campaigned for online safety for years. While skeptical about outright social media bans, he argues: "We now need political will from governments to turn these landmark rulings into a fundamental shift in the business models and features that drive harmful content and keep our children hooked on social media."
The Science of Social Media Addiction
Debate continues about whether social media meets clinical definitions of addiction. Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified during the California trial that social media is not "clinically addictive." However, Mark Griffiths, professor emeritus of behavioural addiction at Nottingham Trent University, notes that while "very few individuals are genuinely addicted to social media," platforms incorporate "structural characteristics that were designed to keep people on platforms for as long as possible."
Chi Onwurah, chair of the Commons science and technology select committee, emphasizes: "Although we have a wealth of data on children's screen time and online behaviour, we still know far too little about how these habits affect children's health, wellbeing and cognitive abilities."
What Comes Next?
Arturo Béjar, a Meta whistleblower who testified in both the New Mexico and California trials, hopes the proceedings will force platform redesigns. "I think that one of the most important aspects of these trials is all of the internal documentation that is seeing the light of day, about just how much Meta knew about these harms and misled parents and regulators about it," said the former senior engineer.
In the UK, there is growing expectation of a social media ban for under-16s. One tech lobbyist acknowledged the industry is "aware we are moving towards a ban" and could "swallow it," partly because children's accounts generate minimal revenue. Whitehall insiders compare the moment to the indoor smoking ban implemented nearly two decades ago.
As the legal battles continue and regulatory pressure mounts, Béjar summarizes the current moment: "It's now the world's move. The world needs to demonstrate that, based on all of this knowledge, it can effectively regulate these companies."
