Jury Finds Meta and YouTube Liable for Plaintiff’s Harm; Judge Denies New Trial, Companies Vow Appeal

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied motions by Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube for a new trial on Tuesday. The ruling followed a jury verdict that found both companies negligent in the design or operation of their platforms and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, identified in court documents as Kaley or KGM, is a 20-year-old woman who filed suit claiming she became addicted to YouTube and Instagram at a young age due to attention-grabbing design features.

Jurors deliberated more than 40 hours across nine days before assigning 70 percent of the liability to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube. Judge Kuhl dismissed the companies’ argument that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded them from the claims.

She stated that the law does not address the companies’ design choices and noted that the jury was repeatedly instructed not to consider content.

“There was substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform,” Kuhl wrote. A Meta spokesperson said the plaintiffs’ legal theory attempts to improperly circumvent Section 230 and the First Amendment, and the company expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal.

José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, confirmed the company plans to appeal.

Mark Lanier, an attorney for the plaintiff, said he was not surprised by the ruling. “The evidence of fault was mountain high,” Lanier stated. The verdict came one day after a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million for violating consumer protection laws.