BBC
In a significant legal ruling, a Los Angeles jury has determined that Instagram and YouTube, two highly utilized digital platforms, are indeed addictive and have been engineered to foster such addiction. The jury also concluded that the corporations managing these platforms have displayed negligence in their responsibility to protect young users.
This verdict represents a pivotal moment for the tech industry, with implications that extend worldwide.
As a result of the ruling, the platform owners, Meta and Google, have been ordered to pay $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages to Kaley, the case's plaintiff, who asserted that her experiences on these platforms led to severe health issues, including body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal ideation.
Both Meta and Google are preparing to appeal the decision. Meta contends that a single app cannot be solely blamed for the broader mental health crisis among adolescents, while Google asserts that YouTube should not be classified as a social network.
In light of this ruling, Dr. Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University, remarked that it signifies the end to an era where tech giants operated without accountability.
This ruling may very well represent a transformative moment for social media platforms. Regardless of the anticipated appeals and ensuing legal battles, this verdict is likely to reshape the regulatory landscape of the industry. It may herald the beginning of a transformative era for social media as it exists today.
A 'big tobacco' moment?
While frequent users of social media may have anticipated the verdict, tech insiders appear to have been caught off guard. Meta and Google incurred substantial legal expenses to defend their positions, underscoring the significance of this case and others like it for the industry.
Notably, TikTok and Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, opted to settle prior to the trial, possibly indicating their unwillingness to engage in a lengthy legal battle.
In prior discussions, I encountered presentations showcasing various tools that social media platforms claim to offer parents to safeguard their children. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ruled these measures insufficient.
Arturo Bejar, a former employee at Instagram, recounted that he alerted Mark Zuckerberg to the potential risks posed to children years ago, stating, "It transitioned from a product you utilized to one that consumes you." Meta has disputed Bejar's claims.
Some analysts have characterized this verdict as akin to the 'big tobacco' moment for technology, reminiscent of the consequences faced by the tobacco industry in the past.
Could we witness health warnings on screens or advertising restrictions?
Currently, tech companies in the U.S. benefit from Section 230, a legal clause that protects them from liability for user-generated content. This immunity does not apply to other media forms, and skepticism around this protection is rising, as evidenced by a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing regarding the issue.
Despite the generally favorable relationship between tech executives and U.S. President Donald Trump, who has long supported the tech sector, he has yet to defend them in this context.
Another potential outcome could involve platforms eliminating features that are intended to maximize user engagement. However, the prospect of removing the practices that drive user retention—such as endless scrolling and algorithmic recommendations—would fundamentally alter the nature of social media.
The financial success of major platforms hinges on their ability to maintain extensive engagement, ensuring users remain online for extended periods to facilitate targeted advertising. This model has proven lucrative.
In various regions, including the UK, children previously contributed to this advertising ecosystem only after regulatory interventions. However, today’s young users represent the future adult demographic, and ideally, tech companies hope to convert them into loyal users by the time they reach adulthood. The original Facebook, now under Meta's umbrella, often referred to as the “boomer platform,” still attracted nearly half of its global users aged 18-35 as of 2025.
More challenges to come
Kaley's legal victory marks the second significant setback for big tech within a series of looming lawsuits set for trial in the U.S. this year. The legal challenges are expected to proliferate.
"This transformative verdict, combined with other similar lawsuits targeting social media corporations, indicates a shift in judicial perspectives on platform design, recognizing that specific choices can result in tangible legal and social ramifications," remarked Dr. Rob Nicholls from the University of Sydney. "It paves the way for broader challenges against social media and technology systems that prioritize engagement over user welfare."
Australia has already embraced a strict approach, having blocked access to major social platforms for users under the age of 16. Similar measures are under consideration in the UK and various other countries, with this ruling further reinforcing arguments advocating for such regulations.
For many parents grappling with the effects of these platforms, prohibiting access for children is an obvious solution. Bereaved British mother Ellen Roome, whose son Jools Sweeney tragically passed away following an online challenge in 2022, stated, "Just do it now," in a call for changes to social media practices.
Currently, Parliament finds itself divided on the appropriate course of action. Ongoing debates in both the House of Lords and Commons are characterizing the back-and-forth negotiations over a proposed amendment to the Children's Schools and Wellbeing Bill, aimed at granting ministers a year to determine which platforms to limit for those under 16. This new verdict may serve to catalyze consensus among politicians on this critical issue, prompting reflections on the historical permissiveness toward children's unrestricted use of social media.
Share this story