Landmark Verdicts Could Unleash New Legal Playbook Over Social Media Harms

Juries in New Mexico and California delivered twin verdicts this week finding tech giants Meta and Google liable for harms to young users on their platforms, watershed decisions that could open the door to more lawsuits alleging that the companies fuel addiction or endanger kids.

A jury in New Mexico found that Facebook parent company Meta violated the state’s consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of its platforms, awarding $375 million in civil penalties to the plaintiffs in a first-of-its-kind state enforcement decision. The case focused heavily on claims that the company failed to prevent and alert users to sexual predation on its sites.

Meanwhile, a jury in California found Meta and Google-owned YouTube to be negligent in using addictive design features that led to mental distress for a young woman. The jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta bearing the brunt of the cost, and an additional $3 million in punitive damages.

The decisions mark landmark victories for child online safety advocates, who for years have clamored for state and federal regulators to rein in practices and design choices by tech companies they argued were enabling or facilitating harms to kids.

The verdicts also advance a pair of novel theories in the United States legal system for holding tech companies responsible for harms to kids and teens using their products, with one grounded in state consumer protection law and the other in personal injury law.

The court decisions come as efforts to pass new child online safety guardrails have run into major roadblocks at the federal level, and as parallel efforts to enforce new protections at the state level face ongoing legal challenges that have stunted or delayed their effect.

Together, the verdicts could usher in a new wave of lawsuits that could expose the companies to more punitive damages and reputational risk. Here’s how:

In New Mexico, a win for consumer protection enforcers

The jury in New Mexico on Tuesday sided with claims brought by state Attorney General Raúl Torrez in a 2023 lawsuit that Meta made “unfair or deceptive “ statements about the safety of its platforms and engaged in "unconscionable trade practices” that endangered children in violation of state consumer protection law, known as the Unfair Practices Act.

Jurors awarded a maximum penalty of $5,000 per infraction, totaling $375 million in damages. While a significant sum, it was a fraction of the more than $2 billion enforcers initially sought, a fact company representatives noted after the ruling. Meta has said it will appeal the decision.

A second phase in the trial is set to continue in May over New Mexico’s other claim that Meta constitutes a “public nuisance” under state law. Other states and even major cities like New York City have sued the social media giants on “public nuisance” grounds, constituting yet another legal tool officials have begun to test to hold platforms accountable.

Torrez said he plans to seek sweeping changes to Meta’s practices through injunctive relief in the latter half of the case, including “changes to the design features of the platform itself, real age verification, changes to the algorithm, an independent monitor to oversee those changes and fundamentally a demand that they do business differently in New Mexico.”

The lawsuit is one of dozens that state AGs have filed against tech giants, including Meta and TikTok, in recent years, alleging that the companies violated various state consumer protection statutes against deceptive or unfair trade practices by misleading users about the safety of their sites or concealing information about potential dangers there, such as child exploitation.

While some of the lawsuits have been filed separately under state or local laws, others have been filed jointly at the federal level, creating a barrage of litigation and court proceedings that have resulted in a steady stream of new revelations about the companies’ conduct.

While the New Mexico lawsuit was brought under that state’s consumer protection law, all states have some standard prohibiting deceptive practices, and many have laws similarly prohibiting unfair or unconscionable practices, according to the National Consumer Law Center. Federal law also prohibits unfair or deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

This means that, even if the verdict does not serve as direct precedent for cases in other states, it is likely to embolden regulators nationwide to pursue similar cases against the tech giants.

In California, a victory for private litigation on addiction harms

A jury in Los Angeles found on Wednesday that Meta and YouTube harmed a 20-year-old woman, identified in the case as KGM, when she was younger by using features like auto-play and infinite scroll to intentionally keep her hooked on their platforms, harming her mental health.

The jury found the companies liable on all counts, including negligence in their design choices, failing to warn users of risks and causing substantial harm to the plaintiff. Under the verdict, Meta is responsible for 70% of the $3 million in compensatory damages and YouTube is responsible for the remaining 30%.

Tech companies have disputed claims that their platforms are inherently addictive while acknowledging some “problematic” use. Google and Meta said they plan to appeal the decision.

Prior to the California trial, two of the other companies the plaintiff had sued, TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap, settled the lawsuit for undisclosed terms.

The civil case is one of hundreds heading to trial to argue that Big Tech companies, like Big Tobacco in years past, have created addictive products that harm users and misled or hid information about their dangers in a bid to drive up consumption.

Many, like the most recent case in California, rely on another novel legal theory that social media companies can cause personal injury to users.

The latest verdict could foreshadow additional defeats in similar cases around the country, the number of which has ballooned in recent years. If it does, it could increase companies’ financial exposure as damages add up or raise the pressure on them to change their commercial practices.