A jury in a court case in California today ruled against Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC’s YouTube over claims that the companies designed addictive products that harmed a young user and ordered that compensation be paid.

The plaintiff in the case, identified in reports as K.G.M. or Kaley, claimed that heavy use of Instagram and YouTube in her childhood had contributed to her depression, anxiety and body image issues.

K.G.M.’s lawyers argued Meta and Google had intentionally built products to keep young users engaged through features such as autoplay, endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations and persistent notifications. Additionally, they argued, those features were not neutral tools but systems designed to maximize time spent on the platforms.

The jurors agreed and awarded $3 million in damages, split 70% to Meta and 30% to Google. The jurors also found grounds for punitive damages, with additional proceedings expected to determine whether the companies must pay more.

Meta and Google are expected to appeal the ruling.

The companies argued during the trial that adolescent mental health is influenced by many factors while also pointing to safety features, parental controls and content management tools already available on their platforms.

The finding comes a day after Meta was found to have violated a New Mexico law by misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and failing to protect children from exploitation. In that case, Meta was found responsible for violating New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act because it misled the public about safety for young users.

The New Mexico case did have some differences from the California case today, in that the first case related to sexualized content and predatory behavior. But the common theme between the two does come down to safety for younger users, or more specifically, the lack thereof provided by social media platforms and services such as YouTube.

The verdict today also sets a precedent ahead of thousands of similar claims relating to safety issues that are currently working their way through courts across various states.  Major technology companies have been accused by parents groups and others of helping drive a youth mental health crisis through engagement-driven design.

Putting aside who is right or wrong, the Los Angeles verdict marks an important moment for the tech industry. It suggests that juries may be increasingly willing to hold platform operators accountable not just for the content they host, but for the architecture they use to keep users coming back.

Image: SiliconANGLE/Ideogram