Mark Lanier, the folksy Texas litigator who doubles as a part-time pastor, held a jar of M&Ms in front of the Los Angeles jury and told them that each one represented a billion dollars of Meta’s market capitalisation. There were, by that maths, roughly 1,400 sweets in the jar. The jury awarded his client six of them. The question now stalking Silicon Valley is what happens when the other jars start to empty.
On Wednesday 25 March, a California jury found Meta and Google liable on all counts in the first bellwether trial to test whether social media platforms can be treated as defective products, engineered, like a faulty car seat or a contaminated drug, to cause harm. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified only as K.G.M. and referred to in court as Kaley, told the jury she had begun using YouTube at six years old and Instagram at nine, and that the platforms had amplified personal struggles into body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts. After nine days of deliberation, 43 hours in total, the jurors agreed.
The damages were modest by big-tech standards: $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, split 70-30 between Meta and Google. Meta’s share amounts to $4.2 million against a company whose market capitalisation, at the time of the verdict, stood at approximately $1.4 trillion. But the financial significance of the ruling lies not in what was awarded but in what it unlocked. More than 10,000 individual cases and nearly 800 school-district claims are pending in federal multidistrict litigation, with eight further bellwether trials scheduled for the months ahead. The verdict establishes, for the first time, that a jury will accept the legal theory that social media apps should be treated as products whose design is inherently defective.
The ruling landed one day after a separate jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico, ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties ,$5,000 per violation — after finding the company had violated state consumer-protection laws by enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram. New Mexico became the first state to prevail at trial against a social media company over child-safety concerns. Evidence presented during that six-week trial included internal Meta documents and testimony from former employees establishing that the platform’s design features had enabled predators to target minors. A bench trial on the state’s remaining claims against Meta is scheduled to begin on 4 May.
The back-to-back verdicts sent Meta’s stock into its steepest decline in more than two years. Shares fell 6.8 per cent the day after the Los Angeles verdict, continued sliding to an 8 per cent drop the following day, and finished the week down 11 per cent. By month’s end, Meta was down 19 per cent, having shed roughly $310 billion in market value. Analysts at JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs began revising their price targets, citing what they described as unquantifiable tail risk from the cascade of litigation now using the verdict as a template.
Inside Meta, the verdict is viewed as a disappointment rather than a crisis — at least publicly. The company had entered the trial confident in its position, arguing that Kaley’s struggles with family and school predated her use of Instagram and that reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risked leaving broader issues unaddressed. A spokesperson told the BBC that many teenagers rely on digital communities to find belonging. Meta said it would appeal, and gave no indication it would settle future cases or alter its product design.
Google took a different tack, arguing that YouTube had been mischaracterised in the trial. YouTube is “a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” the company said — a distinction the jury evidently did not find persuasive. Both companies will have the opportunity to refine their legal arguments as the bellwether programme continues, but the evidentiary record from Kaley’s trial, including internal documents in which Meta executives discussed efforts to attract and retain young users, can now be recalled in subsequent proceedings.
TikTok and Snapchat’s parent company Snap Inc had been co-defendants in the case but settled before the trial began. The settlement amounts remain undisclosed, and neither company admitted liability, but the decision to resolve their exposure before a jury could weigh in suggests their legal teams reached a different calculus than Meta’s. Both companies remain defendants in several upcoming bellwether trials.
The broader implications extend well beyond courtroom damages. Eric Goldman, an associate dean and professor of law at Santa Clara University, told the BBC he viewed the social media addiction cases as a potentially existential threat to the industry’s current business model. The social media industry, Goldman wrote after the verdict, “faces existential legal liability and inevitably will need to reconfigure their core offerings if they can’t get broad-based relief on appeal.” Former Twitter executive Bruce Daisley framed the structural problem more bluntly: two decades of growth had produced businesses “geared for trying to force people to spend more and more time” on their platforms, and any regulation or litigation that threatened that engagement model became a problem to be neutralised through lobbying and public relations.
The legal reckoning arrives at a moment when the technology industry’s relationship with regulators is already under severe strain. Australia’s social-media age ban, which took effect in December 2025, has prompted enforcement actions against five platforms for non-compliance. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and AI Act are imposing new obligations that many companies have struggled to meet. The NIS2 Directive has expanded cybersecurity regulatory scope across eighteen sectors. And the US Congress, where Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was meeting Senate Majority Leader John Thune on the day the verdict landed, continues to weigh federal age-verification and platform-liability legislation.
What distinguishes the litigation from the regulatory push is that juries, unlike legislators, do not negotiate. They decide. And in Los Angeles last week, twelve citizens decided that the products Meta and Google built were defective, that the companies knew they were defective, and that a young woman was harmed as a result. The $6 million penalty is a rounding error for companies worth more than the GDP of most nations. The legal precedent is not.
As Kaley’s attorney Jayne Conroy told the BBC after the verdict: there is, right now, a lot of maths going on in boardrooms at Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login