Reuters reported on October 28 that two teenagers were due to take claims against Snap, and one of them against Meta, to trial in Los Angeles. It reported a $6 million verdict in the first individual trial and said Meta and Snap disputed the claims and sought separate trials.
Snap was due to face claims by both teenagers, and Meta a claim by K.D.B., in a Los Angeles trial scheduled to begin with jury selection on October 28, Reuters reported. The first such trial ended in March with a $6 million verdict against Meta and YouTube, and in August Meta reached state settlements worth up to $18 billion, the report said. The two teenage plaintiffs described staying awake for hours scrolling and harming themselves using methods shown in social media videos, the news agency reported. The report said jury selection would begin October 28 before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, and that more than 3,000 related suits are consolidated in that court. The immediate fight is whether the two cases should be tried together.
Meta and Snap dispute the allegations, Reuters reported. A Meta spokesperson said in a statement quoted by Reuters that a young person’s mental health “is shaped by many factors,” that the plaintiff with a remaining claim against Meta used TikTok far more than Instagram or Facebook, and that her personal circumstances were “a substantial factor in her struggles.” A Snap spokesperson said, according to the same report, that Snapchat does not open to a feed or a ranking of what other people post, and that the allegations misrepresent the plaintiffs’ experiences on Snapchat and how the platform was designed.
The California panel is open to everyone: the verdict count, total damages, median and largest verdict. Subscribe free to open every other state on the map, plus one courtroom story every Monday.
Court papers refer to the plaintiffs as S.J., 16, and K.D.B., 18, Reuters reported. Both allege that autoplay, infinite scroll and other features encouraged compulsive use and contributed to depression, anxiety and eating disorders. They also described losing focus in class. Those are their claims, not findings about either company.
The defendants differ across the two cases. Reuters reported that both teenagers have claims against Snap, while only K.D.B. still has a claim against Meta. Both settled with TikTok and YouTube before trial, and S.J. also settled with Meta. The jury therefore will not decide claims against every platform the teenagers used.
Meta and Snap asked Judge Kuhl to split the plaintiffs’ cases into separate trials, arguing that trying them together would unfairly mix up the evidence for jurors, Reuters reported. As of that October 28 report, the judge had not ruled on the request.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel were expected to testify, the report said. Emily Jeffcott, a lawyer for K.D.B., said in a statement reported by Reuters that she looked forward to educating the jury about the dangers of features including endless feeds, autoplay and streaks.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The first individual trial ended in March with a Los Angeles jury finding Meta and YouTube negligent and awarding $6 million, Reuters reported. A May 22 joint filing in the Northern District of California records that Judge Kuhl entered judgment against Meta and YouTube on April 7 in that first case, known as K.G.M. In the section headed Meta’s JCCP Update, the filing adds that the judge stayed enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of post-trial motions, subject to Meta and YouTube posting a bond.
The earlier verdict tested one plaintiff’s claim against Meta and YouTube. This trial brings different plaintiffs and leaves Snap defending claims by both of them. Reuters reported that the teenagers seek compensatory and punitive damages, without specifying amounts. The $6 million award is a prior result in the broader litigation, but it sets no damages figure for these two claims.
Reuters reported that Meta is appealing the first verdict and argues a federal law protecting online platforms from liability for user content should have barred the claim. It also reported that Judge Kuhl rejected that defense as applied to claims about how the sites were designed, allowing the two current plaintiffs’ cases to reach trial. The distinction is central to this litigation: the teenagers challenge alleged design choices, while Meta continues to contest whether the claims may proceed at all.
Meta reached the August settlements to resolve claims by nearly every U.S. state and territory over teen mental health, Reuters reported. The individual injury cases remain. Reuters reported that members of Meta’s senior legal team regarded individual and school district cases as harder to prove than state cases because plaintiffs must connect a specific problem to a specific platform.
S.J. and K.D.B. describe use of several platforms, yet the remaining defendants and claims are narrower than the group they originally sued. Meta points to K.D.B.’s TikTok use and personal circumstances. Snap disputes the plaintiffs’ description of how Snapchat works. The plaintiffs say platform features contributed to their injuries. A verdict will turn on what the jury finds about those accounts.
Reuters reported that these suits were selected as bellwethers, or test cases, among the more than 3,000 consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court. It also reported more than 3,800 suits raising similar claims pending in federal court in California. The report said the verdict could influence how the companies and plaintiffs resolve the remaining cases.
The first jury answered one young woman’s claim with $6 million. The state settlements addressed another set of claims for up to $18 billion. The pending choice is narrower: whether Judge Kuhl tries these two teenagers’ cases together or separately, a ruling Reuters’ October 28 report left open.
Related: California nuclear verdicts.
The readiness check has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the 2-minute readiness check →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.