‘A turning point’: Kiwi researcher reacts as Meta and Google lose addiction case

Thursday, 26 March 2026

A California jury has found that Meta Platforms and Google can be held responsible for designing addictive social media platforms-a decision that could expose the companies to a wave of lawsuits and reshape how Big Tech is regulated worldwide.

And a New Zealand researcher says the ruling marks a turning point.

“I was relieved and really excited,” said Dr Samantha Marsh, a senior research fellow at the University of Auckland.

Her research shows 22% of New Zealand teenagers meet the threshold for problematic social media use - rising to one in four among girls.

Read More:

• Ban first, explain never: The Kiwis losing work, memories and community to Meta

• From New Zealand to the courtroom: A Kiwi investigates big tech

• Instagram's 'deliberate design choices make it unsafe for teens’

Addiction and harm were at the centre of the California case, which was decided after nearly nine days of jury deliberations.

The case was brought by a 20-year-old woman, known as KGM, who said she first used YouTube at around age six and created an Instagram account at nine.

Her lawsuit alleged that Facebook, Instagram and YouTube fostered addiction through design features such as “likes”, algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, autoplay and deliberately unpredictable rewards.

She said her use contributed to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia-where someone perceives themselves as flawed or disfigured despite no objective basis-and suicidal thoughts.

The case is significant because it sidesteps Section 230 - the law that has long shielded tech companies from liability for user-generated content.

Instead of focusing on what users post, the lawsuit argues companies are responsible for how their platforms are designed.

Through legal discovery, the case forced the release of internal company documents that shed light on how platforms are engineered.

One internal YouTube document from 2021 asked: “How are we measuring wellbeing?” The answer: “We’re not.”

Another described children under 13 as the fastest-growing internet audience - an opportunity for YouTube to act as a “digital babysitter” for users as young as eight.

A further document stated: “[The] goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.”

Internal Meta emails also reveal unease among staff.

In a 2017 exchange, one employee wrote: “oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now?”

A colleague replied: “zuck has been talking about that for a while.”

“yeah it was gross the last time he mentioned it,” the first responded.

Marsh said exposing how these companies operate should prompt change, including shifting the burden onto platforms to prove their products are safe for children before they are widely used.

“That hasn't happened, and it didn't happen with social media, and it's not happening with AI right now,” she said.

“We don’t want this to just end up again in 10, 15 years in a courtroom. We should be doing something proactively to protect our children.”

On Thursday morning (NZ time), the jury awarded KGM US$3 million (NZ$5.17m) in damages, finding Meta 70% responsible and Google 30%. It later awarded a further US$3 million in punitive damages.

Both companies have said they plan to appeal.

More than 20 similar cases are expected to follow in the United States, potentially setting legal precedents.

Some legal experts have likened the moment to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s, when companies were found to have concealed evidence about the addictive and harmful nature of their products.

While the science around social media addiction remains contested, the cases are expected to have global implications, potentially accelerating regulatory change.

In New Zealand, the Government is considering a social media ban for under-16s and the creation of an online regulator, although no formal announcement has been made.

Marsh, who supports a ban and works with lobby group B416, said the case reinforces evidence that earlier exposure increases the risk of harm.

She pointed to research cited in the trial suggesting children who begin using platforms at age 11 are four times more likely to develop sustained patterns of use than those who start at age 20.

The question now, she said, is whether governments act before the damage is entrenched - or years later after a court ruling.