US Jury Finds Meta And Google Platforms Are Addictive And Harmful To Children

A US jury in California has found that Meta and Google designed platforms that are addictive and harmful to children’s mental health, in a verdict that could have ramifications for tech regulation in Australia and around the world.

The Los Angeles jury determined that Meta, owner of Instagram, and Google, owner of YouTube, intentionally built addictive social media platforms that harmed a 20-year-old plaintiff known as Kaley. She was awarded US$6 million in damages.

The BBC reports the verdict came just one day after a separate jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay US$375 million for violating consumer protection law and putting profits ahead of safety.

Back-to-back verdicts raise stakes for Big Tech

In the California case, jurors found Kaley should receive US$3 million in compensatory damages and an additional US$3 million in punitive damages after determining Meta and Google “acted with malice, oppression, or fraud” in the way they operated their platforms.

Meta will shoulder 70 per cent of the damages, with Google responsible for the remaining 30 per cent.

Both companies have indicated they disagree with the verdict and intend to appeal. The BBC reports Meta stated that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” while a Google spokesperson argued the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

The New Mexico case, brought by state Attorney General, Raul Torrez, found Meta liable for violating the state’s Unfair Practices Act by misleading the public about the safety of its platforms for young users. The BBC reports that during the seven-week trial, jurors were presented with internal Meta documents and heard testimony from former employees about the company’s awareness of child predators using its platforms.

A new front in tech liability

Australian Legal experts view the twin verdicts as a shift in how courts assess responsibility for platform design choices.

Dr Christopher Rudge, Lecturer and Deputy Director of Sydney Health Law at the University of Sydney’s Law School, described the California verdict as part of a longer legal trajectory.

“This verdict is another step in a long legal journey toward recognising that psychological and psychiatric harm is real, serious and compensable,” Dr Rudge explained. “What’s new here is the defendant: this is not a negligent driver or a bad employer, but a technology platform whose design was deliberately engineered to make disengagement difficult.”

“The jury’s finding that those design choices caused genuine psychiatric injury to a child is a significant development.”

Dr Rudge noted that courts have steadily expanded the recognition of psychiatric harm in negligence for more than a century, and this verdict fits within that trend. What distinguishes it is the finding of psychiatric injury arising not from a single traumatic event but from chronic, cumulative exposure to a designed environment.

He pointed out that the plaintiffs reframed the case as a product-design problem, targeting features like infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, which allowed them to avoid US content-liability shields under Section 230.

Echoes of tobacco litigation

Dr Rudge drew a comparison to earlier public health legal battles, noting the jury’s conclusion that platforms knew of harms to children but continued regardless “goes directly to breach and mirrors the knowledge findings central to tobacco litigation.”

The decision may open the door to similar claims in Australia under Australian Consumer Law consumer guarantees and product liability provisions, he added.

Dr Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney, reinforced that view.

“This 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,” Dr Nicholls stated. “It opens the door to wider challenges against social media and other technology systems engineered to maximise engagement at the expense of user wellbeing.”

Dr Nicholls highlighted an important distinction between the two cases. The New Mexico action was a consumer-protection enforcement case built around platform-wide risks and Meta’s internal knowledge, while the California claim centred on an individual’s addiction. Both approaches could inform future litigation in other US states and internationally.

Design choices under scrutiny

The cases have placed specific platform features under the microscope, including infinite scrolling, autoplay video, notification systems and algorithmically personalised content feeds.

Dr Christina Anthony, Marketing Lecturer at the University of Sydney’s Business School, offered a consumer psychology perspective on these design elements.

“The jury’s decision reflects an evolving awareness that digital environments can significantly shape behaviour, often in ways users may not fully recognise,” Dr Anthony observed. “From a consumer psychology perspective, these design elements are intended to enhance user experience and engagement, but they can also make it easier for patterns of frequent or prolonged use to develop, particularly among younger users.”

Professor Uri Gal, who specialises in Business Information Systems at the University of Sydney’s Business School, argued the verdict underscored a straightforward principle about protecting minors.

“Societies must place limits on children’s access to environments where predatory behaviour is common and safeguards are weak,” Professor Gal contended. “We do not allow minors into comparable physical spaces, and online platforms should be no different. Age-gating is a necessary baseline for digital environments where risks are widespread and difficult to control.”

Implications for regulation beyond the US

The verdicts land at a time when governments around the world are reassessing their approach to platform regulation and youth safety.

Australia has already imposed restrictions on children’s use of social media, while the United Kingdom is running a pilot program to test how a ban on social media for people aged under 16 might work.

Dr Joanne Gray, Chair of Discipline in Media and Communications at the University of Sydney, framed the California verdict as a watershed moment.

“A group of ordinary American citizens did what US regulators have so far failed to do,” Dr Gray remarked. “They looked at the evidence and found that Meta puts profits over user safety. This jury decision sends a clear message to all the Big Tech platforms: they need to do better, especially when it comes to keeping kids safe.”

Dr Gray noted the verdict marks a turning point compared to past congressional hearings and regulatory action, which have produced public scrutiny but limited concrete consequences for the companies involved.

Hundreds of similar cases in the pipeline

The BBC reports there are thousands of similar lawsuits working their way through US courts, suggesting the legal and financial exposure for Meta and Google could grow considerably.

Research Director, Mike Proulx, from Forrester told the BBC the back-to-back verdicts underline a “breaking point” between social media companies and the public.

Meta’s Chairman and Chief Executive, Mark Zuckerberg, appeared before the California jury in February, relying on the company’s longstanding policy of not allowing users under the age of 13 on any of its platforms. Meta has also pointed to features such as Teen Accounts on Instagram, launched in 2024, which give younger users more control over their experience.

Whether those measures will prove sufficient to shield the company from further legal action remains an open question as courts, regulators and legislators across multiple jurisdictions continue to grapple with the responsibilities of platform operators toward their youngest users.

Last Updated on March 26, 2026 by Nick Ross