When we first wrote about the social media addiction litigation, we explained that the March 2026 verdict against Meta and YouTube rested on a critical legal finding: that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not shield these companies from liability for their own product design choices. This week, that finding got stronger.
On Tuesday (June 9), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied motions by Meta and Google's YouTube seeking a new trial in the case — the lawsuit brought by a woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a young person because of their attention-grabbing design. The jury had found the companies negligent and imposed $6 million in damages. With these motions denied, that verdict stands.
Why the Section 230 Ruling Matters
The most significant part of Judge Kuhl's decision was her rejection of the companies' Section 230 argument. For years, social media platforms have leaned on Section 230 — the federal law that generally protects online services from liability for content their users post — as a near-complete defense against lawsuits like this one.
Judge Kuhl held that the law simply does not reach the question at issue. The case was never about the content users posted; it was about how the platforms were built. As she wrote in her ruling:
"There was substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform."
She noted that the jury had been repeatedly instructed not to consider content at all — only design. That distinction is the entire ballgame. It is the difference between treating a platform as a passive bulletin board (protected) and treating it as a product whose addictive engineering caused harm (not protected). A judge has now examined that theory after a full trial and affirmed it in writing.
What the Companies Said
Both companies disagreed and signaled they will appeal. A Meta spokesperson said the plaintiff's legal theory "attempts to improperly circumvent Section 230 and the First Amendment," and predicted the ruling would be overturned on appeal. A Google spokesperson confirmed the company plans to appeal as well.
Mark Lanier, the attorney for the plaintiff, was less surprised by the outcome. "The evidence of fault was mountain high," he said.
What This Means for Families
An appeal is now likely, and these cases can take time to fully resolve. But the practical significance of this week's ruling is hard to overstate. The single biggest legal obstacle standing between injured families and recovery — the Section 230 shield — has now survived a post-trial challenge. Every plaintiff's attorney working these cases can point to a written order, from a judge who heard all the evidence, holding that product design claims are not barred by Section 230.
Combined with the ongoing developments we have covered — the $375 million New Mexico verdict, the public nuisance trial now underway in Santa Fe, and the federal MDL in the Northern District of California — the legal foundation for these claims continues to solidify rather than weaken. Each ruling like this one makes the path clearer for the thousands of families pursuing similar claims.
Contact Triten Law
If your family has been affected by harms tied to social media use — particularly if your child began using these platforms as a minor — the law in this area is developing in ways that increasingly favor injured plaintiffs. Triten Law offers free, confidential consultations to evaluate whether your situation fits within the existing litigation. Contact us today.
← Back to News & Insights