Bellwether trials are complicated but consequential. Pulled from a morass of claims, they’re designed to test how a jury responds to a broader legal theory. Often, they fall flat.
Today in a California court, one did not.
Kaley, a 20-year-old who alleged that social media harmed her childhood by addicting her and keeping her on platforms like Instagram for up to 16 hours a day, won $3 million in damages. A jury found Meta (the parent company of Instagram) and Alphabet (the parent company of Google and YouTube) liable, assigning 70% of the damages to Meta and 30% to Alphabet. TikTok and Snapchat, also named as defendants, settled before trial without admitting fault.
The amount—roughly 0.0015% of Meta’s 2025 revenue, and even less for Alphabet—is negligible for the companies, though punitive damages have yet to be decided. The precedent, however, may not be, as the case calls into question whether Section 230—the federal law that protects tech companies from liability by treating them as platforms rather than publishers—will indeed continue to act as an effective shield.
In a move that more or less skirted Section 230, the jury found that Meta’s design and operation of Instagram was negligent, and that this negligence was a “substantial factor” in the harm Kaley suffered. It also found the company negligent for failing to warn users about the potential risks of its products.
A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal, adding that its lawyers are “evaluating our legal options.” A Google spokesperson echoed that position: “We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.”
Both companies have strong incentives to challenge the ruling, as the decision “is going to open up some floodgates” and “definitely makes it more likely there will be more lawsuits,” says Duke University public policy professor Robyn Caplan.
