A jury in Los Angeles recently reached a verdict that will no doubt come as a relief to parents who have seen a generation of children suffer from mental health problems since the rise of social media. For the first time, corporations peddling social media apps were held liable for harm caused to a young user because they were designed to promote addictive behavior. This landmark decision marks a shift in how courts may evaluate a social media company’s responsibility for its product design, opening the door to future lawsuits based on harm to users’ mental health.
The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman, alleged she was addicted to Instagram and YouTube starting at a young age. She used beauty filters to enhance her appearance and found herself unable to stop using the social media networks, continuously checking “likes” and interactions for up to 16 hours a day.
Sadly, her addiction came with consequences. Because of the plaintiff’s obsession with social validation, she withdrew from friends and family and had difficulty focusing on school work. She even developed severe depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.
At trial, the plaintiff’s argument did not focus on the specific content she viewed. Instead, plaintiff focused on the social media platforms’ product design. A jury agreed with her view and found the companies were negligent in how they engineered their services, specifically citing features designed to maximize engagement and time spent on the apps. These features—often referred to as “addictive design”—include infinite scrolling, autoplay, and frequent push notifications. The jury concluded that these elements were a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles and that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks of compulsive use, awarding damages to the plaintiff for her injuries.
While this verdict occurred in California, the legal principles involved—negligence and failure to warn—are fundamental to personal injury and product liability law in both New York and Massachusetts. This outcome suggests that social media platforms may no longer be shielded from liability when it can be proven that their internal design choices directly contribute to a minor’s psychological harm.
For parents in our region who believe their children have suffered similar injuries, this verdict provides a framework for seeking accountability.
Asserting a claim against a major tech corporation requires a high standard of proof. To build a viable case, parents and guardians should begin identifying and preserving specific types of evidence that demonstrate both the “addiction” and the resulting “damages.”
A legal claim must be rooted in a specific, diagnosed injury. General “unhappiness” or “moodiness” is typically insufficient for a lawsuit. Key evidence includes records of:
Proving that a child was “addicted” requires showing the extent of their engagement with the platform. This involves:
Evidence that the child’s life was significantly disrupted is crucial. This can be supported by:
In some cases, it is helpful to document the type of content the algorithm pushed to the child. For example, if a child with an eating disorder was consistently fed content glorifying disordered eating, screen recordings or saved “Explore” page screenshots can demonstrate how the platform’s design exacerbated the underlying condition.
The recent verdict in California indicates that the legal system is beginning to recognize the potential for digital products to cause physical and psychological harm. If you believe you or your child have suffered severe mental health consequences due to the addictive design of social media platforms, contact the attorneys at Dreyer Boyajian LLP to understand the specific statutes of limitations and evidentiary requirements in New York or Massachusetts.
