在一个里程碑式的决定中，陪审团发现Meta和YouTube在设计伤害儿童和青少年的应用程序时存在疏忽，并且没有警告他们这些危险。
陪审团裁定赔偿金为300万美元。陪审团还认为惩罚性赔偿是正当的，后来决定追加300万美元的惩罚性赔偿，使原告凯利的损失总额达到600万美元。
Meta将支付420万美元，YouTube支付180万美元。
这起诉讼是由一位名叫“凯莉”的20岁女性提起的，她声称主要的社交媒体公司有意将他们的平台设计成令人上瘾的。该诉讼称，自动滚动等功能使原告沉迷于这些平台，最终导致焦虑、抑郁和身体形象问题。
在给美国广播公司新闻的一份声明中，Meta发言人说，“我们尊重地不同意判决，并正在评估我们的法律选择。”
Meta随后与ABC新闻分享了一份更新的声明，称他们将上诉。
“我们不同意这一判决，并将上诉，”声明中写道。“青少年心理健康非常复杂，不能与一个应用程序联系在一起。我们将继续积极为自己辩护，因为每个案件都是不同的，我们对我们保护青少年上网的记录仍然充满信心。”
原告律师在给ABC新闻的一份声明中称这一判决“比一个案件更重要”。
YouTube告诉ABC新闻，它将对判决提出上诉。
“我们不同意判决，并计划上诉。这起案件误解了YouTube，YouTube是一个负责任的流媒体平台，而不是一个社交媒体网站，”谷歌发言人何塞·卡斯塔涅达说。
“多年来，社交媒体公司一直通过瞄准儿童来获利，同时隐瞒他们令人上瘾和危险的设计特征，”原告律师继续说道。“今天的判决是一次全民公决——从陪审团到整个行业——问责制已经到来。我们现在进入审判的下一阶段，重点是惩罚性赔偿。”
根据判决，损害的70%是Meta的责任，30%是YouTube的责任。
陪审团对每一个与疏忽和未能警告危险有关的问题都给出了肯定的回答。十名陪审员在每个问题上都支持原告，两人在每个问题上都支持被告。
该判决是Meta在多天内的第二次失败，在一次审判中，新墨西哥州法官指控Meta违反了州保护法，故意伤害儿童的心理健康，并在其社交媒体平台上隐瞒了有关儿童性剥削的信息，对他们处以3.75亿美元的罚款。
洛杉矶的判决标志着一场审判的结束，这场审判见证了社交媒体领袖以及本案核心的20岁原告的证词。
在今年2月的证词中，凯莉回答了关于她早年生活和社交媒体使用的问题，她说她6岁时就开始使用视频共享平台YouTube——该平台归谷歌所有。原告在庭审中作证说，她至今仍在使用社交媒体。
这起具有里程碑意义的案件在加州高等法院审理，Meta -脸书和Instagram的母公司以及谷歌旗下的YouTube作为被告向前迈进。
社交平台Snapchat和抖音此前在诉讼中被点名，但上月与原告达成和解，但没有承认有不当行为。
脸书创始人兼Meta首席执行官马克·扎克伯格此前在庭审中作证，回答了与年龄限制、应用参与度和过滤器有关的问题。
在对扎克伯格的开场提问中，凯利的律师马克·拉尼尔问道，一家公司是否应该“利用”弱势群体。“我认为一个合理的公司应该努力帮助那些尝试和使用其服务的人，”扎克伯格说。
在法庭上的紧张交流中，扎克伯格承认Meta很难在Instagram上实施年龄限制。Instagram的政策规定，13岁以下的儿童不能创建账户。原告的律师表示，在新的限制措施出台之前,“Kaley”从10岁开始使用这款应用。
“我总是希望我们能早点到达那里，但我认为我们现在在一个更好的地方，”扎克伯格说。
Instagram负责人亚当·莫塞里(Adam Mosseri)在去年的审判中作证，并表示他不同意诉讼中使用的“成瘾”一词。他说，“临床成瘾”不同于Instagram的“有问题的使用”，他说后者是“真实的”，并将后者描述为用户在该平台上花费了“太多时间”。
Mosseri说，在“安全和言论”之间总是有一个权衡，他说用户不喜欢从Instagram中删除选项。
Jury decides YouTube, Meta should pay $6 million in damages after finding them negligent in landmark trial
In a landmark decision, a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing apps that harmed kids and teens and failed to warn them about the dangers.
The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $3 million. The jury also found punitive damages are warranted, andlater decided on an additional $3 million in punitive damages, bringing the total damages owed to the plaintiff Kaley to $6 million.
Meta would pay $4.2 million and YouTube $1.8 million.
The lawsuit, brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as "Kaley," alleges major social media companiesintentionallydesigned their platforms to be addictive. The suit claims features like auto-scrolling got the plaintiff addicted to the platforms, ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In a statement to ABC News, a Meta spokesperson said,"We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options."
Meta later shared an updated statement with ABC News saying they would appeal.
"We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal," read the statement. "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."
The plaintiff's attorney called the verdict "bigger than one case," in a statement to ABC News.
YouTube told ABC News it will appeal the verdict.
"We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," said Google spokesperson José Castañeda.
"For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features," the plaintiff's attorney continued. "Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived. We now move forward to the next phase of this trial focused on punitive damages."
The damages were found to be 70 percent the responsibility of Meta and 30 percent the responsibility of YouTube, according to the verdict.
The jury returned an answer of "Yes" to every question posed relating to negligence and failure to warn of dangers. Ten jurors were in favor of the plaintiff for every question, with two in favor of the defense in every question.
The verdict is the second loss in as many days for Meta, who saw a $375 million penaltylevied against them by a New Mexico juryin a trial alleging Meta, violated state protection laws, knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed information about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms.
The Los Angeles verdict marks the end of a trial that saw testimony from social media leaders as well as the20-year-old plaintiffat the heart of the case.
During her testimony in February, Kaley answered questions about her early life and social media use, saying she began using the video sharing platform YouTube -- which is owned by Google -- when she was 6 years old. The plaintiff testified during trial that she still uses social media to this day.
The landmark case was heard in the California Superior Court of Los Angeles County, with Meta -- Facebook and Instagram's parent company -- and YouTube, which is owned by Google, moving forward as defendants.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month without admitting wrongdoing.
Facebook founder andMeta CEO Mark Zuckerbergtestified in the trial previously, answering questions related to age restrictions, app engagement and filters.
In his opening questions to Zuckerberg, Kaley’s attorney Mark Lanier asked if a company should "take advantage" of vulnerable people. "I think a reasonable company should try and help the people who try and use its services," Zuckerberg said.
In tense exchanges in court, Zuckerberg admitted it is difficult for Meta to enforce age restrictions on Instagram. Instagram's policy states that children under age 13 are unable to create accounts. The plaintiff’s lawyer says "Kaley" started using the app at age 10, before those new restrictions were put in place.
"I always wish we would have gotten there sooner, but I think we're in a better place," Zuckerberg said.
Instagram headAdam Mosseri gave testimonyearlier in the trial and said he disagreed with the term "addiction" as used in the lawsuit. He said "clinical addiction" is different from "problematic use" of Instagram, which he said was "real" and described the latter as users spending "too much time" on the platform.
Mosseri said there is always a tradeoff between "safety and speech," saying users don't like it when they remove options from Instagram.
