A California court has dealt another setback to Google and Meta, refusing to reopen a closely watched lawsuit in which a jury concluded that the companies’ social media platforms were designed in ways that contributed to a young user’s addiction.
The decision came from a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, who rejected requests from both companies for a new trial following a jury verdict that awarded $6 million in damages to a woman who argued that she became hooked on Instagram and YouTube during her youth.
At the heart of the dispute was not the content users encountered online, but the architecture of the platforms themselves. The plaintiff contended that features engineered to maximize engagement drew her into compulsive use at a vulnerable age, causing lasting harm. Jurors agreed, finding the companies negligent.
Both tech giants had attempted to overturn the verdict by invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally shields online platforms from legal responsibility for material posted by users. The court, however, found that argument misplaced.
In its ruling, the judge emphasized that the case focused on product design rather than user-generated content. Jurors had been repeatedly instructed to assess the platforms’ features and mechanics, not the material appearing on them.
The ruling noted that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Instagram’s design elements themselves caused harm, independent of any specific content viewed on the service.
Meta signaled that the legal battle is far from over. A company spokesperson said the decision misapplies protections provided by Section 230 and raises concerns involving free speech rights under the First Amendment. The company expects the verdict to face further scrutiny on appeal.
Google likewise indicated that it intends to challenge the outcome in a higher court.
The plaintiff’s legal team welcomed the ruling, arguing that the evidence presented during trial overwhelmingly demonstrated how platform design choices contributed to addictive behavior among younger users.
The case has emerged as one of the most significant tests yet of whether social media companies can be held legally accountable for engagement-driven design features. As appeals move forward, the dispute is expected to remain a focal point in the broader debate over the responsibilities of major technology platforms toward children and teenagers.
