(The Center Square) – Meta and YouTube are appealing a $6 million-plus ruling that held them liable for social media addiction.
Meta Platforms Inc. is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads. YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. YouTube and Google are owned by Alphabet Inc.
Attorneys for a 20-year-old California woman identified only as K.G.M. or “Kaley” argued the social media platforms “caused severe mental health harm” to her during her preteen and teenage years.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury agreed on Wednesday.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda does not see it that way.
“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” Castañeda told The Center Square Thursday. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
The verdict ordered Meta and Google to each pay more than $3 million in compensatory damages.
Meta did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment. However, the company has issued statements to news outlets saying that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”
Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm and lead trial counsel representing K.G.M., said in a press release that the companies purposely “built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children.”
The Center Square reached out to the plaintiff’s attorney for comment, but did not hear back by press time.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, as did Instagram head Adam Mosseri and psychiatrist Kara Bagot.
“The evidence showed that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms were hooking children and harming their mental health, and instead of fixing the problem, they kept developing features to maximize the time kids spent on their apps,” said Lanier in a press release.
Snapchat and TikTok were originally defendants in the case, but they each settled claims with the plaintiff before trial. Terms were not disclosed.
Earlier this week, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million over child exploitation and user safety claims.
Both rulings have been labeled “historic” by experts observing the lawsuits.
