Meta and YouTube are pushing back against a historic jury verdict, filing separate motions in Los Angeles Superior Court to have the ruling thrown out. The companies, in legal documents submitted earlier this month, urged Judge Carolyn Kuhl to either dismiss the charges entirely or order a fresh trial. The challenge was widely anticipated, coming weeks after a California jury ordered the tech giants to pay a combined $6 million for their role in a young woman's depression.
The case, which consolidated thousands of lawsuits from individuals, states, and school districts, centers on K.G.M., a 20-year-old who began using social media as a child and claims she became addicted to the platforms. Her attorneys argued that the addiction exacerbated her depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts. The jury found both companies negligent in the design and operation of their platforms, a rare breach of the legal shield typically provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230, enacted in 1996 before the rise of social media, generally protects tech companies from liability for third-party content. However, this case sidestepped that shield by focusing on platform design and operational features rather than user-generated content. Legal experts say this distinction could set a precedent for future lawsuits, as the verdict marks one of the first successful challenges to Section 230 in a social media addiction context.
In their filings, Meta and YouTube also invoked the First Amendment, arguing that holding them liable for platform features infringes on free speech protections. The companies contend that such features are protected expression, a claim that critics say stretches constitutional guarantees to shield corporate negligence. K.G.M.'s legal team dismissed these arguments as recycled tactics. “Meta and YouTube have raised these same arguments at every stage of this litigation, and we expect Judge Kuhl to reject them as she has before,” the team said in a statement. “The verdict in KGM reflects what the evidence showed: that these platforms knowingly caused serious harm to a child.”
The back-to-back verdicts—this one and a separate New Mexico ruling against Meta over children's safety—have sent shockwaves through Big Tech. For the first time, juries have held social media platforms directly liable for their impact on minors, a development that youth safety advocates have long sought. These groups have lobbied Congress for years to pass legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act, but political infighting and procedural hurdles have stalled progress.
The broader political landscape adds urgency to the issue. As lawmakers debate tech accountability, the verdicts could pave the way for similar lawsuits, according to legal analysts. The outcome also echoes debates in other policy areas, such as the ongoing controversy over how foreign actors manipulate social media platforms to spread disinformation, a problem that has prompted calls for stricter regulation.
The Hill reached out to Meta and Google for comment but had not received a response at press time. The companies' motions now rest with Judge Kuhl, who previously rejected similar arguments during earlier stages of the litigation. Meanwhile, K.G.M.'s attorneys remain confident, noting that the jury deliberate carefully in what they called a “historical bellwether case.”
This legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of broader scrutiny of tech giants. Recent news, such as the CMS data leak exposing Social Security numbers, underscores systemic vulnerabilities in digital systems. As courts and Congress grapple with tech accountability, the Los Angeles verdict stands as a potential turning point in the fight over children's online safety.
