Meta and Alphabet's "addiction verdict" is reversing the social media trend.

Over the years, Meta and Google have faced penalties, including a $6 million fine for their apps’ addictive nature and the resulting mental health crises. This may seem insignificant. In March of this year, a Los Angeles jury ruled that this amount would be paid to a 20-year-old woman referred to as K.G.M. in the lawsuit. Compared to the $5 billion fine issued to Meta by the Federal Trade Commission or the $3.5 billion fine imposed on Google by the European Union, this $6 million is just a drop in the bucket.

However, underestimating this moment of accountability for big tech companies would be a serious mistake. Those previous fines could be viewed as operational costs for the companies. They did not lead to substantial changes in the actual products—whose key feature is their ability to keep users hooked in order to sell advertising.

But the K.G.M. case, along with a similar ruling made the day before in another Meta lawsuit in New Mexico, could mark a turning point. As Mothers Against Media Addiction celebrated in a statement praising the ruling, the Los Angeles case has been chosen as a benchmark: thousands of similar cases are awaiting trial, brought by families, school districts, and other groups affected by Meta and Google’s product design choices, including lawsuits against owners of apps like Snapchat.

This ruling will further promote a legal strategy that has proven more effective than some previous attempts. Past efforts were either blocked by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or ran into the notorious Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act— which shields platforms from liability for third-party content.

In this case, lawyers turned to tort law (a branch of civil law dealing with personal injury claims), allowing them to sidestep these issues and instead pose a new question: if it can be proven that the design architecture of these services itself is the cause of K.G.M.’s addiction? Features like infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, push notifications, and beauty filters— all fully controlled by the companies—are considered engineered designs for addiction. Lead attorney Mark Lanier called it “engineering design for addiction.” Many of us have likely experienced this firsthand—time slipping away unnoticed when using these apps.

The day before the Los Angeles ruling, a jury in New Mexico awarded $375 million to Meta for failing to protect young users from online harms (such as sexual predators), violating the state’s consumer protection laws. Dozens of other states have also filed similar lawsuits.

Both companies have announced plans to appeal the rulings. They argue there is no evidence that their apps are “clinically” addictive. During testimony in Los Angeles, Mark Zuckerberg stated that releasing an app that makes users feel bad while using it is not in the company’s interest. Internal documents have become strong evidence against Meta, showing that the company knew its apps attracted young users. A 2018 document stated: “If we want to win big with teenage users, we have to attract them before they hit puberty.”

Research predicts that reaching broad settlements with social media companies could cost “billions of dollars.” Beyond Meta’s potential future liabilities, investors face the question of how these rulings might impact the companies’ core business models. eMarketer analyst Minda Smiley noted, “It’s increasingly clear that as concerns grow and scrutiny intensifies, maintaining the status quo will become more and more difficult for these companies.” But how drastic these changes will be depends heavily on how higher courts handle the appeals.

A federal judge overseeing multi-district litigation (merging thousands of related cases) ruled that some design features involved in the case (like infinite scrolling) are protected under Section 230—though she also found that other features (such as lack of sufficient control measures) are not protected. As this case moves into the next phase, expect more intense debates around this highly controversial internet law.

For those hoping for real change, the risk is that without substantial product redesigns and safeguards against the harms many believe they cause, these victories could stall. On the other hand, if the plaintiffs continue their winning streak, these cases could set important precedents for how social networks operate—and even for AI companies’ addictive, engaging chatbots.

It’s still too early to say whether these cases, as Lanier suggested outside the courtroom, are “a jury vote on the entire industry—an era of accountability has arrived.” But even if accountability isn’t fully here yet, it’s undoubtedly knocking loudly. For the first time, these cases are, to some extent, leveling the playing field, and the lobbying forces that previously hindered effective legislation are no longer able to tilt the scales.

Any resistance to the use of these apps could become a thorn in the side of big tech companies. eMarketer notes that after years of growth, social media usage has plateaued. Young people may be starting to shift their attention elsewhere, much like previous generations faced with various temptations.