FOLLOW US

A Los Angeles jury has issued a sweeping judgment against two of the world’s most widely used digital platforms, Instagram and YouTube, concluding that both apps are intentionally designed to be addictive and that their operators failed to adequately protect young users.

The decision marks a sobering development for Silicon Valley, with consequences expected to resonate far beyond the United States.

In the case, tech companies Meta and Google were ordered to pay $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages to a young woman identified as Kaley, who alleged the platforms contributed to body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Both firms have said they will challenge the ruling. Meta argues that no single app can be blamed for a broader teen mental health crisis, while Google maintains that YouTube does not qualify as a social network.

Still, the verdict represents a significant legal milestone. According to Dr Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University, it signals that "the era of impunity is over."

The broader impact of the decision could be profound. While appeals and additional legal battles are expected, the case is widely seen as a moment that could reshape the social media industry.

Some observers suggest it may even mark the beginning of a fundamental shift in how such platforms operate.

Echoes of Past Industry Reckonings

Though frequent users of social media may not be surprised by the findings, the ruling appears to have caught major technology companies off guard.

Meta and Google reportedly spent heavily on legal defenses, underscoring the importance of the case. Meanwhile, TikTok and Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, reached settlements before the trial began, prompting speculation within the tech sector that they sought to avoid a costly courtroom fight.

Companies have long highlighted safety tools aimed at protecting younger users, particularly those designed for parents. However, the court ultimately determined those measures fell short.

Arturo Bejar, a former Instagram employee, said he had warned CEO Mark Zuckerberg years ago about potential harms to children.

"It changed from a product you used to a product that uses you," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday. Meta has denied his claims.

Some analysts have likened the verdict to the tobacco industry’s legal reckoning decades ago, raising questions about whether similar regulatory measures could follow. These could include health warnings, tighter advertising rules or limits on platform features.

At the center of the debate is Section 230, a U.S. law that shields tech companies from liability for user-generated content — protections not afforded to traditional media organizations.

While the tech sector has long argued that its business model depends on such safeguards, scrutiny appears to be intensifying. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the issue earlier this week.

Despite historically strong ties between tech leaders and U.S. President Donald Trump, the administration has yet to publicly defend the companies following the verdict.

Business Model Under Pressure

Another possible outcome is that platforms could be forced to remove features designed to maximize user engagement.

Such changes would strike at the core of their business model.

Tools like infinite scrolling, algorithm-driven recommendations and autoplay functions are central to keeping users online longer — a key factor in generating advertising revenue.

Without them, social media platforms would likely offer a markedly different, and potentially less compelling, user experience.

Although regulations in places such as the United Kingdom have limited how children are targeted by advertising, companies still benefit from cultivating young users who may remain active into adulthood.

Facebook, Meta’s original platform, is often dubbed the "boomer platform," yet data from 2025 indicates nearly half of its global users are between 18 and 35.

More Legal Challenges Ahead

Kaley’s case represents the second major courtroom loss for big tech among a series of similar lawsuits scheduled in the United States this year, with additional trials expected.

"This landmark verdict, along with many other similar lawsuits against social media companies, signals a shift in how courts view platform design as a set of choices that can carry real legal and social consequences," said Dr Rob Nicholls of the University of Sydney.

"It opens the door to wider challenges against social media and other technology systems engineered to maximise engagement at the expense of user wellbeing."

Some countries have already begun taking action. Australia introduced a ban on social media use for children under 16 in December, while the UK and others are weighing comparable measures.

For many parents, stricter controls cannot come soon enough.

"Just do it now," said bereaved British mother Ellen Roome, who has campaigned for reform following the death of her 14-year-old son, Jools Sweeney, in 2022, which she believes was linked to an online challenge.

In the UK, lawmakers remain divided. The House of Lords and House of Commons are currently engaged in legislative back-and-forth over a proposed amendment to the Children’s Schools and Wellbeing Bill that would give ministers a year to determine which platforms should be banned for under-16s.

The latest U.S. ruling could add urgency to those debates, both in Britain and internationally.

As policymakers grapple with the implications, the question remains whether future generations will look back on this era and question why children were ever allowed unrestricted access to social media platforms.