Meta social media lawsuit verdict faces appeal after a jury found platform design contributed to a young woman’s addiction and mental health harm.
The Meta social media lawsuit that produced a landmark verdict over youth addiction is heading to appeal after the company challenged the jury’s findings in Los Angeles.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the decision in a closely watched social media addiction case. The jury concluded that the company designed its platforms to keep young users engaged without adequately considering their well-being.
Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal on Tuesday in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. They are expected to outline the detailed grounds for the appeal in later court filings.
Jury Awards Millions in Meta Social Media Lawsuit
The case centred on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media during childhood. She also alleged that the addiction worsened her mental health struggles.
Court documents identified the woman only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.
The jury found that negligence by Meta and Google-owned YouTube substantially contributed to the harm she suffered. YouTube was also named as a defendant in the case.
Jurors awarded Kaley $3 million in damages. They also recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages.
Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said on Friday that the legal team expects the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”
A notice of appeal begins what can become a lengthy legal process.
Meta repeated a statement it issued when the jury delivered the verdict in March. A company spokesperson argued that teenage mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”
Google spokesperson José Castañeda also confirmed on Friday that YouTube plans to appeal. He said “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”
Judge Rejects Requests to Overturn Verdict
Meta and Google previously filed post-trial motions seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defence lawyers routinely use such motions to ask a judge to set aside a jury’s decision.
Both companies also requested a new trial.
However, trial judge Carolyn B. Kuhl rejected those motions in early June, leaving the jury’s findings intact and clearing the way for the appeals process.
Technology companies such as Meta and YouTube generally receive protection from liability for content posted by third parties. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides much of that protection.
To avoid those legal barriers, the plaintiffs focused on how the platforms were designed rather than the content users posted.
They highlighted features such as “infinite scroll,” which allows feeds to continue without a natural stopping point. They also pointed to autoplay functions that automatically deliver additional content.
Throughout the five-week trial, the defendants repeatedly objected when arguments appeared to move into territory involving user-generated content.
Verdict Could Affect Thousands of Similar Cases
The California verdict arrived during a difficult period for Meta.
Just one day earlier, a New Mexico jury found that Meta’s platforms harmed children’s mental health and safety. State prosecutors brought that case, and the jury imposed a penalty of $375 million.
Meta said it disagreed with the New Mexico verdict and would appeal that decision as well.
“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson said after the verdicts and repeated on Friday.
Kaley’s case marked the first lawsuit of its kind to reach such a verdict. Its outcome could influence thousands of similar cases accusing social media companies of intentionally designing products that cause harm.
TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were originally defendants in the lawsuit. However, both companies reached settlements for undisclosed amounts before the trial began.
The appeal will now test whether the jury’s findings on platform design and addiction can survive further judicial review. The result could shape how courts treat future claims involving social media companies, young users and mental health.
