In the United States, Meta and YouTube found guilty of making their platforms addictive.

A historic conviction. On Wednesday, Meta and YouTube were found guilty of negligence for intentionally designing their products to be addictive at the expense of the mental health of young users. The parent company of Facebook and Instagram was ordered to pay $2.1 million in damages to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman. Google’s subsidiary will have to pay $900,000. Additional “punitive” damages are yet to be determined, and both companies are expected to appeal.

Beyond the relatively modest amounts, this verdict could set a precedent in jurisprudence. It may pave the way for similar convictions in thousands of other ongoing cases in the United States, while encouraging new legal actions against social platforms. It also weakens the position of these tech giants in the battle that will unfold this summer against several U.S. states determined to seek radical changes in the operations of their apps.

Similar to the tobacco industry cases in the 1990s, plaintiffs are aiming to show that social networks were aware of the addiction risks but chose to overlook them to maximize user engagement and ad revenue. The use of endless scrolling, autoplay videos, and recommendation algorithms are claimed to promote compulsive use and mental health issues. TikTok and Snapchat are also facing accusations after reaching a settlement with the first plaintiff.

In response, social networks cite their experts to highlight the lack of scientific consensus on the link between platforms and mental health issues in adolescents. They emphasize the personal backgrounds of the plaintiffs and the safety measures they have implemented to mitigate risks and provide tools for parents.

Legally, the platforms argue they are protected by Section 230, a law passed in 1996 that grants them near-complete legal immunity regarding user-generated content. They claim not to be held responsible for the negative impact of certain videos on mental health. However, a judge involved in the case indicated that the social networks’ operations should be considered.

The outcome of the first trial rested partly on the interpretation of whether social media addiction stems from video content or the algorithms that recommend, automatically play, and endlessly distribute them. The latter scenario was deemed valid, depriving Meta and YouTube of their immunity. The verdict was rendered by a jury, known to be more receptive to plaintiffs’ arguments against large companies.

In June, Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat will face another threat: a federal trial combining complaints from numerous local authorities and school districts. The plaintiffs seek corrective measures to limit risks, such as blocking usage during school and evening hours, disabling endless scrolling, and banning beauty filters.