A US jury has found that major technology companies are liable for deliberately designing addictive products, in a case centred on the impact of social media on a young individual’s mental health. Jurors found that the tech companies had been negligent and failed to provide suitable warnings about the potential dangers of their products.

The lawsuit was brought by a 20-year-old woman, known throughout the trial as ‘KGM’, who said her use of platforms owned by Meta and Google had contributed to serious mental health problems. She testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which had negative effects on her wellbeing. By the age of 10, she had become depressed and began self-harming. By 13, her therapist diagnosed her with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, which KGM claims was caused by Instagram and YouTube.

The jury concluded that Meta and Google – which owns YouTube – were not simply neutral ‘platforms’ of user-generated content, but that their design – including features intended to keep users engaged for longer – played an active role in causing harm. Historically, platforms have not been treated as publishers, making this a landmark decision.

Below, we speak to Nick Couldry, author of The Space of the World and professor at LSE, to unpack what the ruling means for the future of social media and the tech industry.

WHY IS THIS DECISION SUCH A LANDMARK?

“While the ruling does not immediately change how social media platforms operate, it signals a shift in how responsibility may be assigned in the future,” Couldry explains. “Instead of focusing only on what users post, attention is increasingly turning to how platforms are built — and the role that design plays in shaping user behaviour.”

The decision comes from a single jury in Los Angeles, he adds, which means it “cannot set any legal precedent in a formal sense”. But it's still a powerful “bellwether” which signals a shift towards addressing the impunity which social media companies have long been afforded. “After extensive evidence, [the jury] have found that Facebook and Google created and sustained addictive platforms in pursuit of profit – ie in pursuit of a business model that had only one aim – to maximise  ‘engagement’ from which advertising income could be harvested. This finding fits with all the academic and scientific evidence from multiple countries.”

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Couldry says that the decision makes it “likely” that other families and individuals will sue tech giants like Meta – and not just in the US. “Potentially, this could open the floodgate to hundreds or even thousands of other cases, which could generate a total damages bill which is truly significant,” Couldry continues. “Meta have said they will appeal, though on what grounds is not clear, and Google’s response is awaited.”

In the short-term, though, Couldry doesn’t think any seismic change is on the horizon. “I don’t expect them to change anything until they are forced to. Changing their business model, unless forced to, is not a concession they can afford to make. Governments – at federal and state level – will therefore need to step in and drive legislative and regulatory pressures to force changes on Facebook and Google that reflect this decision.”

“The wider question is how we can allow addictive platforms to be legal at all, given their consequences for all citizens, whether young or old,” he continues. “This decision starts to expose what many of us had long suspected – that the debate about age-related social media bans is simply not radical enough.”