A jury in Los Angeles has ruled that Instagram and YouTube are addictive and deliberately engineered to be so, with their owners found negligent in safeguarding children. The verdict. Which comes after a high-profile case involving a young woman named Kaley, has sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and could mark a turning point in how social media platforms are regulated globally.

Legal Battle and Financial Consequences

Kaley claimed that the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts, leading to a $6 million (£4.5 million) damages award against Meta and Google. Both companies have stated they will appeal the ruling, with Meta arguing that a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis. Google, on the other hand, maintains that YouTube is not a social network.

Dr. Mary Franks. A law professor at George Washington University, said the ruling signifies the end of an era for big tech. “The era of impunity is over,” she stated, emphasizing the significance of the verdict. The ruling is being compared to the “big tobacco” moment, where companies faced legal consequences for knowingly harming users with addictive products.

The Tech Industry’s Response

The case. Along with others like it. Has forced Meta and Google to spend significant legal resources to defend their positions — the other two companies involved in the trial, TikTok and Snap (owner of Snapchat), chose to settle before the case went to court. Some in the tech industry suggested this was due to financial constraints.

Arturo Bejar. A former Instagram employee. Warned Mark Zuckerberg years ago about the dangers posed to children. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the platform changed from a product users engaged with to one that actively engaged users. Meta has denied his claims.

Section 230. A clause in U.S. law that shields tech companies from liability for content on their platforms, has been a key legal defense for big tech. However, skepticism about this shield is growing, with a Senate Commerce Committee holding a hearing to discuss its future.

Regulatory and Social Implications

The ruling could lead to more stringent regulations on social media platforms. Experts suggest that health warnings on screens, restricted advertising, and limited sponsorship opportunities may become reality. In Australia, a law was recently passed to block under-16s from the biggest social platforms. Similar measures are being considered in the UK and other countries.

Bereaved British mother Ellen Roome, who lost her 14-year-old son to an online challenge, has been campaigning for stricter social media regulations. “Just do it now,” she said, urging parents to take action.

The UK Parliament is currently divided on whether to ban social media for under-16s. A proposed amendment to the Children’s Schools and Wellbeing Bill would give ministers a year to decide which platforms to ban. The recent verdict may provide the impetus needed to bring politicians and peers together on this issue.

Dr. Rob Nicholls of the University of Sydney said the ruling signals a shift in how courts view platform design. “It opens the door to wider challenges against social media and other technology systems engineered to maximise engagement at the expense of user wellbeing,” he said.

Meta’s original social network, Facebook, is often joked about as the “boomer platform,” but 2025 data shows nearly half of its users are aged 18-35. This suggests that the tech industry is increasingly targeting younger users, who will become adults in the near future.

The success of big platforms relies on keeping users online for long periods. Techniques like endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and auto-play are designed to maximize engagement, which in turn drives advertising revenue. However, in several territories, including the UK, children do not contribute to this advertising machine. Regulators have intervened to prevent underage users from being targeted.

Kaley’s court victory is the second major defeat for big tech in similar cases this year. More legal challenges are expected as courts continue to scrutinize how platforms are designed and their impact on user wellbeing.

The future of social media is uncertain. The ruling could lead to significant changes in how platforms operate, including the removal of features designed to keep users engaged. However, without these features, the platforms may become less effective and less appealing to users.