How Social Media Verdicts Could Upend Tech Industry

 by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Two major court verdicts last week finding social media giants Meta and YouTube liable for harm to users could send shock waves through the tech industry.

In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, a jury in Los Angeles on March 25 found both companies liable for making their platforms addictive and deleterious to the mental health of young users.

The 20-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Kaley G.M.” or only her initials K.G.M. during trial, testified that she had become addicted to social media at a young age and that it negatively affected her mental health.

Jurors ultimately decided that Meta was more liable for harming K.G.M., giving the tech giant 70 percent of the responsibility, or $2.1 million of the total $3 million in punitive damages, while YouTube shouldered 30 percent, or $900,000.

An additional $3 million in compensatory damages were recommended by jurors to be paid by Meta and YouTube—the only remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap settled with K.G.M. before trial—after deciding they acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in harming children with their platforms.

In a separate case, jurors in New Mexico determined on March 24 that Meta had violated state law by failing to properly disclose risks to and protect children on its social media platforms. The case, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, resulted in a $375 million fine.

Prosecutor Linda Singer, who previously served as attorney general of the District of Columbia but now works in private litigation, had asked the jury to fine Meta $2 billion.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani called them “bellwether” cases.

“Obviously, these cases will absolutely go up on appeal,” he told The Epoch Times.

“I think they will likely end up before the Supreme Court, and how they view this issue will make or break Big Tech, because I think we’re going to see lots of copycat lawsuits, and the judgments and fines are going to rack up into the billions and billions of dollars.”

A person holds a sign referencing the 20-year-old plaintiff, identified in court as “Kaley G.M.” or by her initials K.G.M., as people wait for a verdict in the social media trial in Los Angeles on March 20, 2026. On March 25, a jury found both companies liable for making their platforms addictive and deleterious to the mental health of young users and ordered the companies to pay $3 million in damages. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

While the cases reflect two different sets of accusations—addictive design on the one hand and failure to protect children on the other—both will likely invite a torrent of claims, said John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations.

“I think this will definitely open the litigation floodgates in California, and not just for individual lawsuits,” Shu told The Epoch Times. “It also opens the floodgates to class action lawsuits; that’s where the big money is.”

Addictive Design Versus Child Safety Issues

In the Los Angeles trial, jurors heard testimony from a range of witnesses, including therapists, adolescent addiction experts, executives, engineers, and whistleblowers.

The case highlighted the platforms’ design and operation, such as their “infinite scroll” features, beauty filters, and the companies’ proprietary algorithms that determine the type of content served to users.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier did not target third-party content found on the platforms, which enjoys broad protection from the First Amendment and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Instead, he argued that the tech giants preyed on their vulnerable teen users in pursuit of money and power, comparing them to lions stalking wounded gazelles on the Serengeti.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier (C) speaks to reporters outside the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles on March 25, 2026. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

In the New Mexico case, Torrez argued that Meta violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act by knowing about the potential danger its platforms presented to children and hiding it from the public.

His office had its investigators set up accounts on Meta’s platforms posing as minors, after which they began to receive sexually explicit images and messages from adult users.

Jurors ultimately found 37,500 violations under one subsection of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act and the same number under another. Since fines were limited to a maximum of $5,000 per violation, Meta was fined $375 million.

“It was pretty remarkable, because the jury came back quickly. And the conventional wisdom in these civil cases is that a quick verdict is usually a defense verdict,” Rahmani said, referring to a verdict that is given in favor of a defendant, often when the plaintiff or prosecutors are unable to prove their case.

Instead, jurors returned an “overwhelmingly plaintiff’s verdict in less than a day,” Rahmani said.

But Meta may be forced to do more after it defends itself during the follow-up hearing in May, which will determine whether the tech giant’s platforms created a public nuisance and whether it should be required to pay for public programs to address harms to users.

Accusing Meta of creating a public nuisance with its digital social media platforms is a novel use of the law, Shu said.

“The historical tradition of public nuisance is tied to land or real estate,” he said, using the example of a landowner being required to remove a fallen tree blocking a public road at the threat of fines from a state or municipal government.

Lawyer Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center speaks to the press as survivor parents Amy Neville, Julianna Arnold, Deb Schmill, Judy Rogg, Toney Roberts, and Brandy Roberts stand outside the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026. Jill Connelly/Getty Images

“This is a novel use of public nuisance. But if they convince a judge to do it, that’s going to open the door to massive payouts, not in actual damages, but in so-called ‘abatement costs,’” Shu said. “Because the state attorney general represents all of New Mexico’s 2.1 million citizens, they and their private sector mass-tort plaintiffs lawyers can ask for billions of dollars.”

That’s because in a public nuisance hearing, the awarded damages would not be based on individual violations of the law, but instead applied to the number of citizens in the state.

Critically, both verdicts only require the companies to pay out monetary damages—neither requires either company to change or alter the design or operations of their platforms. That may change for Meta after its May hearing in the New Mexico case.

Meta, Google Deny Allegations

Both Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, have denied that their platforms are designed to be addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” Jose Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

Meta said it respectfully disagrees with the two verdicts and plans to appeal.

“Reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risks leaving the many, broader issues teens face today unaddressed and overlooks the fact that many teens rely on digital communities to connect and find belonging,” a company spokesperson said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“We remain committed to building safe, supportive environments for young people and will defend our record vigorously.”

Meta also highlighted the fact that the jury in the California case awarded $3 million in punitive damages after the plaintiff’s counsel had sought more than a billion.

Attorney Luis Li, representing YouTube and Google, arrives at Los Angeles Superior Court during the social media trial in Los Angeles on March 25, 2026. Both Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, have denied that their platforms are designed to be addictive and plan to appeal. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Future Litigation Potential

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he noticed similarities between the two social media cases and those he’d previously litigated against the tobacco industry.

“Both [Big Tobacco and Big Tech] have made products with lethal design defects—leading to destructive addiction. Tobacco exploited nicotine’s grip, Big Tech used infinite scrolling, & a myriad of other devices,” he wrote on social media.

“Both have targeted children—relentlessly & reprehensibly—putting profits over public health, promoting generational addiction & harm.”

Shu said social media litigators may follow a similar playbook used against Big Tobacco by first suing based on alleged harms to children before widening the scope to all users of the companies’ products.

“Once they’ve established liability for kids, instead of saying, ‘Well, adults use cigarettes too,‘ now they’re going to say, ’Well, adults use Instagram and Snapchat too,’” he said. “So that’s where all this is headed next.”

Google is particularly vulnerable, Shu said, because it is responsible not only for YouTube, but also for Android, Gemini, and DeepMind, and it is the dominant search engine.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) participates in a forum at the U.S. Capitol on March 17, 2026. Blumenthal said he noticed similarities between the two social media cases and those he’d previously litigated against the tobacco industry. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Braden Perry, a government investigations and corporate litigation attorney, said the verdicts provide regulatory agencies with a road map for pursuing future cases without requiring new legislation.

State attorneys general can also pursue consumer protection actions against tech companies, Perry told The Epoch Times.

Long-Term Impacts on Tech Industry

“If engagement-maximization features become liability risks, platforms will face pressure to redo their algorithms and interfaces to prioritize welfare over engagement metrics,” Perry said, adding that “good actors” in the industry may face more disadvantages than companies “who skirt or ignore the risks” or that are more “aggressive than others.”

He said the verdicts not only threaten Meta and Google, but also the “foundational assumption that technology companies bear no responsibility for their design choices.”

These are not the only ramifications for the tech industry.

The New Mexico case specifically goes “beyond addiction alone and raises broader questions about whether these platforms are reasonably safe for children and adolescents,” attorney Michael Ponce told The Epoch Times.

He said the growing body of scientific research describing how prolonged social media use may negatively impact mental health was critical in both cases.

Images of deceased children are displayed at the “Lost Screen Memorial,” an art installation of large-scale smartphones featuring 50 children who lost their lives due to social media harm online, in Los Angeles on Feb. 13, 2026. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Additionally, the central allegation in the California case and many related lawsuits is that companies were aware of the risks but “nevertheless continued to design their platforms in a manner that prioritized user engagement,” Ponce said.

The two verdicts, and any future cases that draw inspiration from them, could “cripple” the tech industry and send a “warning” to social media companies, Shu said.

He said if prosecutors in other states—particularly one with a large population like California’s—decide to follow the same path as New Mexico, the abatement costs for the citizenry if a public nuisance ruling is granted are likely to be massive.

“This is one heck of a warning, it’s kind of like somebody opening up a fire hose on you to wake you up in the morning,” Shu said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-social-media-verdicts-could-upend-tech-industry