Social media on trial: tech giants face lawsuits over addiction, safety, and mental health

The jury in a landmark trial testing claims about social media addiction against Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube determined that the two companies failed to warn users about the risks of using their products. The jury found the companies’ negligence was a substantial factor in harms like the mental health issues sustained by a now 20-year-old woman Kaley G.M., who used Instagram and YouTube.

The jury ordered both companies to pay a total of $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70 percent of that balance, according to jurors’ responses shared by a firm representing plaintiffs including Kaley. Jurors found that punitive damages were warranted, and they’ll deliberate further on the appropriate amount to award. Ten jurors answered in favor of the plaintiff on each of the questions they were asked to decide, including whether Meta and YouTube were negligent and a substantial factor in the harm she experienced, according to a firm representing the plaintiff. During the trial, Kaley and her therapist testified about her struggles with body dysmorphia and compulsive use of the platforms. Two jurors favored the defense, but the verdict did not require a unanimous decision.

Meta willfully violated New Mexico law by misleading users about the safety of its products and engaging in an unconscionable trade practice, a jury found. The company will face a $375 million penalty for the violations, awarding the maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation for 37,500 violations across two counts. The jury decided against Meta on every count, though it declined to award a penalty as high as the state sought, which would have been closer to $2 billion.

It’s a landmark verdict delivered just one day after closing arguments. New Mexico argued that Meta had flouted state law by misleading consumers and facilitating child predators on its platform. The state set up decoy accounts on Facebook to lure suspected predators to profiles that appeared to belong to minors, and said they found they were flooded with requests and messages from adults. Meta vehemently denied the allegations, saying the states’ investigation was flawed and that it has been truthful about the safety of its products.

Two juries are currently deliberating a series of cases that could either usher in a legal reckoning for Meta, or maintain the status quo in an uphill battle to impose changes or penalties on tech platforms in court.

Yesterday, a New Mexico jury heard closing arguments in a trial where Meta is accused of facilitating child predators on its platforms — allegations the company vehemently denies. And as soon as today, a Los Angeles jury is tentatively expected to reach a verdict in a separate case, which concerns whether Meta and Google should be held liable for making defective products that addicted a young woman. Verdicts against the company could result in damages and civil penalties that could exceed $2 billion dollars. Perhaps more significantly, such an outcome could also invite more legal action after years of failed or stalled attempts to sue tech companies over alleged harm.

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrived at a Los Angeles courthouse on Wednesday, he did so with a team that appeared to be wearing Meta’s camera-equipped Ray-Ban smart glasses. Judge Carolyn Kuhl was concerned. According to CNBC, Kuhl warned anyone recording with the glasses, “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” Kuhl also ordered everyone wearing AI smart glasses to remove them. Even after the warning, at least one person was seen wearing the glasses around jurors in a courthouse hallway, although plaintiff attorney Rachel Lanier was told the glasses weren’t recording at the time.

Glasses with recording capabilities have sparked concerns about privacy, surveillance, and doxxing in all kinds of places, and the courtroom is no exception. Earlier this month, a user on the r/legaladvice subreddit shared a post asking for advice on reporting a plaintiff wearing Meta’s glasses to court. Additionally, over recent months, a few states have moved to specifically ban smart glasses from courthouses, including the US District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the Western District of Wisconsin. The Forsyth County Court in North Carolina also banned smart glasses last year. Colorado’s District Court is considering a ban as well.

Brian Boland spent more than a decade figuring out how to build a system that would make Meta money. On Thursday, he told a California jury it incentivized drawing more and more users, including teens, onto Facebook and Instagram — despite the risks.

Boland’s testimony came a day after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a case over whether Meta and YouTube are liable for allegedly harming a young woman’s mental health. Zuckerberg framed Meta’s mission as balancing safety with free expression, not revenue. Boland’s role was to counter this by explaining how Meta makes money, and how that shaped its platforms’ design. Boland testified that Zuckerberg fostered a culture that prioritized growth and profit over users’ wellbeing from the top down. He said he’s been described as a whistleblower — a term Meta has broadly sought to limit for fear it would prejudice the jury, but which the judge has generally allowed. Over his 11 years at Meta, Boland said he went from having “deep blind faith” in the company to coming to the “firm belief that competition and power and growth were the things that Mark Zuckerberg cared about most.”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg entered a downtown Los Angeles courthouse in largely the same way as all the attorneys, reporters, and advocates who’d come to watch his landmark trial testimony, but with one notable difference: he was flanked by an entourage that appeared to be wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. To get to the courtroom, he walked past a crowd of parents whose children died after struggling with issues they attribute to the design of social media platforms including those that Meta makes. He would spend the next eight hours often answering questions in his signature matter-of-fact (or less charitably, monotone) cadence, denying his platform was liable for the harms.

Zuckerberg was questioned through the morning session by Mark Lanier, the lead litigator for plaintiff K.G.M. She’s a 20-year-old woman who claims Meta and Google’s design features encouraged her to compulsively use their apps and led to mental health issues, which the companies generally deny. Lanier’s charismatic style, drawing from his other profession as a pastor, was in stark contrast to Zuckerberg’s responses on the witness stand, where he tried to inject nuance into how employees discussed — and sometimes criticized — various safety decisions. At times, Zuckerberg pushed back on Lanier’s characterization of his testimony. “That’s not what I’m saying at all,” he said at one point, according to NPR. Meanwhile, the judge admonished people in the courtroom not to wear Meta’s AI glasses, and that they could be held in contempt of court if they fail to delete any recordings; parents whose children died after experiencing harms they attribute to his platform watched on.

Lori Schott didn’t care what it took to haul her way from her small town in Eastern Colorado to show up to a Los Angeles courtroom where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify Wednesday. “I don’t care if I had to hire a pack mule to get me here, I was going to be here,” she told The Verge outside the courthouse Tuesday.

Schott’s daughter Annalee died by suicide at age 18 in 2020, after struggling with body image issues that her mother says were heightened by social media. After her death, Schott found journal entries where Annalee disparaged her own looks and compared herself to other girls’ profiles. “I was so worried about what my child was putting out online, I didn’t realize what she was receiving,” Schott said.

Recently released documents show the big business opportunity that social media companies saw in recruiting teens to their platforms and how they discussed risks that heavy digital engagement could pose.

The documents were released last week as part of a major set of trials brought by school districts, state attorneys general, and others against Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube, alleging the design of their products harmed young users. The Tech Oversight Project, which advocates for more regulations on tech platforms to safeguard teens online, compiled a report on the newly released documents, which were independently reviewed by The Verge. On Monday, a federal judge will hear arguments that will determine the scope of the trials, the first of which kicks off in June.