One day after Meta lost a similar child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, a Los Angeles jury on Wednesday handed the social media giant — along with Google — another defeat. In a case arguing that social media platforms played a major role in harming a young woman’s mental health, jurors have sided with the plaintiff, known by her initials, K. , or her first name, Kaley.

The decision means Meta and Google will have to pay out $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta bearing 70% of that cost.

More damages may also be awarded as the jury continues to deliberate.

The landmark case, taking place in Los Angeles County Superior Court, aimed to hold the social media platforms accountable for the harms caused by Instagram and YouTube specifically, which Kaley, who’s now 20 years old, said contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and other conditions during her youth.

Lawyers for Meta tried to argue that other factors, like Kaley’s disruptive home life and her parents’ divorce, were more to blame for her mental health struggles, not its apps.

But evidence presented at the trial swayed the jury to the plaintiff’s side, demonstrating that Meta understood how addictive its platforms could be among teens in particular and that it was actively researching the issue and using its findings to increase engagement among young users.

In the days before this particular case went to trial, both TikTok and Snap, which were also being sued, settled with the plaintiff.

The ruling — along with others, like Tuesday’s ruling in New Mexico — may establish a precedent that social media firms are responsible for the harms their platforms cause, whether through their lack of safety measures or their algorithmic recommendations.

That could open the door to a new wave of lawsuits as other plaintiffs also attempt to sue for damages

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source