In brief
A Los Angeles jury's ruling holds Meta and YouTube accountable for the mental health issues of a young user due to addictive platform design, igniting fear and denial in Silicon Valley. The case is seen as a foundational moment leading to potential changes in how social media companies operate amid growing public scrutiny.
Silicon Valley is reeling from a seismic verdict delivered by an LA jury on Wednesday.
Tech giants Meta and YouTube were found to be liable for designing their platforms to be addictive, which harmed a 20-year-old's mental health.
The plaintiff at the heart of the case was only known by her first name Kaley, and after nine days of deliberation, the jurors agreed with her on all counts.
Some in the tech world have sought to downplay this case's impact, while others fear it's the beginning of a public reckoning that poses a threat - potentially an existential one - to US social media companies.
As one insider who asked not to be identified told the BBC, we're having a moment.
The view from inside Meta
The verdict has forced those inside the companies to grapple with the fact that many outsiders do not view them as favourably as they have come to view themselves.
Meta, and YouTube owner Google, have both said they will appeal the jury's verdict, which included $3m (£2.3m) in compensation and an additional $3m in damages intended to punish the companies.
Inside Meta, the verdict is viewed as a disappointment. Going into the trial, the company was confident in the strength of its position.
Kaley claimed the platforms amplified her personal issues and left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.
It was a clean sweep with respect to liability against both Google and Meta, case attorney Jayne Conroy told the BBC after the verdict. It will matter.
As the companies face an onslaught of liability claims, evidence and testimony heard in Kaley's case could be recalled in upcoming trials, potentially influencing the legal landscape for social media regulations moving forward.
