When Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, sought to defend itself in the landmark social media addiction lawsuit alleging its products caused personal injury to a young user, it went on the offensive. The mental health problems that the 20-year-old known as KGM suffered since she was a child were not the result of exposure to harm on Instagram, Meta’s lawyers and public relations team argued, but instead linked to her mother’s parenting and her offline social problems.

In a bench memo filed before the trial began, lawyers for Meta quoted excerpts from KGM’s teenage text messages, personal writings and social media posts complaining about her mother. They combed through therapy notes and called on doctors to testify to examples of personal conflict. Throughout the proceedings, Meta’s communications team sent reporters repeated updates from the trial and quotes from testimony that highlighted her familial issues. Far from causing harm, they alleged that Instagram offered a helpful respite from the real world.

Meta’s arguments did not resonate with jurors, who decided 10-2 this week in favor of the plaintiffs and found that Meta deliberately designed an addictive product that hooked KGM and induced body dysmorphia and self-harm. The jury awarded her $4.2m in damages from Meta and $1.8m from co-defendant YouTube in a bellwether decision that could set a precedent for thousands of similar trials already in the works against social media companies.

Meta’s aggressive pushback strategy and its subsequent loss in the trial highlight a problem for tech firms that now face a flood of jury trials: a widespread distrust of social media companies and a negative view of how their products affect society. In attempting to shift the focus to users of their product and families, Meta failed to sway a jury that saw the company as making intentional, negligent choices to entrap users in a potentially harmful online world.

“We wanted them to feel it, we wanted them to know this was unacceptable,” one juror told NPR following the verdict, and also said to the Wall Street Journal that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in the trial seemed inconsistent and “didn’t sit well with us”.

Parent advocates who attended the trial also took note of the bare-knuckle, ad hominem defense strategy.

“For the biggest tech executives, I want to say something: stop blaming the parents. It’s on you,” said Julianna Arnold, a co-founder of advocacy group Parents Rise! who has said her 17-year-old daughter died after meeting a man through Instagram who gave her fentanyl.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment on its legal and public relations strategy in the case. It has said it will appeal the verdict.

“Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson said in an earlier statement to the Guardian.

A defense that focused on family conflict

Over the course of the trial, lawyers for Meta continually tried to paint much of KGM’s mental health issues as the result of verbal and physical abuse from her mother and bullying at school. A bench brief focused on texts that included KGM complaining about a “toxic home” and saying “my mom is legit insane”. In communications with the press, Meta’s public relations team emphasized these messages. In one email, a spokesperson for Meta also highlighted parts of one therapist’s testimony that stated social media addiction is not a recognized mental health condition in the DSM-5 guide of medical disorders.

Psychologists do not classify social media addiction as an official diagnosis, but researchers have documented the harmful consequences of compulsive use among young people. KGM herself testified that social media use starting at six years old had caused her to spiral into anxiety and insecurity that led to self harm and depression. While acknowledging that she and her mother had a difficult relationship, she described her as a loving parent and still lives with her today. Her mother was present for the entire trial.

KGM stated that her mother “wasn’t perfect but she was trying her best”, adding: “I don’t think I would call it abuse or neglect or anything like that.”

In contrast, the plaintiff’s lawyers presented internal communications from Meta employees that appeared to show them discussing the addictive qualities of social media – in one case a Meta employee saying “oh my gosh yall IG is a drug” and another responding “we’re basically pushers”. The plaintiff’s arguments focused on the structural design decisions Meta made to encourage engagement and unfettered use of its products like the creation of an infinitely scrollable feed and defaulting to autoplaying videos.

Meta’s defense targeting parenting as the cause of KGM’s mental health drew backlash from parental advocates that have been vocal in calling for stronger regulation against big tech.

“This was a conscious decision that they made. It was not an accident, and parents are not to blame. They knew the harm. They knew the damage. They assessed the risk, and they moved forward anyway,” Arnold said at a press conference following the trial.

Social media companies face widespread distrust

Even as a growing number of Americans choose to use social media platforms, a strong majority believe that these same platforms have a negative impact on the country – around 64% of US adults think so, according to a Pew Research Survey conducted last year. That number has remained constant over the past five years, despite some changing views depending on political affiliation. Around two-thirds of Americans also have a negative view of Zuckerberg personally, according to a 2024 Pew survey, including 26% who have a very unfavorable view of the Facebook co-founder.

There has historically been a wider gap between how young people view social media versus older generations and parents, but that, too, appears to be closing in recent years. Another Pew Survey conducted in 2024 found that around 48% of teens say social media use harms people their age, up dramatically from only two years before when 32% of teens held that view.

“These verdicts mark an unsurprising breaking point,” said Mike Proulx, research director at the market research firm Forrester. “Negative sentiment toward social media has been building for years, and now it’s finally boiled over.”

The overall distaste for social media companies and concern over their effects have begun to manifest in policies targeting social media companies as well as legal cases. Australia last year became the first country to institute a nationwide social media ban for children under 16 years old, a policy imitated by Indonesia and under consideration by other countries. Following the California verdict, Australian law firms are investigating whether they can press their own cases against social media companies for creating personal harms.

Years of garnering bad will from the public has left social media companies searching for a persuasive argument around why they are not liable for societal harms, and the trial in California at least initially shows they have yet to find it. Advocates for reining in big tech have reacted to the verdict with celebration, as well as a hint of smelling blood in the water.

“This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry’s wanton disregard for people will be on full display,” said Sacha Haworth, the executive director of nonprofit advocacy group The Tech Oversight Project, in a written statement. In a later press call, she said, “They’re really truly pulling from big tobacco’s playbook. Blame the victim, blame the parents, blame the child, blame anyone but the products they designed.”

Dara Kerr contributed reporting.