The jury in a landmark trial testing claims about social media addiction against Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube determined that the two companies failed to warn users about the risks of using their products. The jury found the companies’ negligence was a substantial factor in harms like the mental health issues sustained by a now 20-year-old woman Kaley G.M., who used Instagram and YouTube.

The jury ordered both companies to pay a total of $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70 percent of that balance, according to jurors’ responses shared by a firm representing plaintiffs including Kaley. Jurors found that punitive damages were warranted, and they’ll deliberate further on the appropriate amount to award. Ten jurors answered in favor of the plaintiff on each of the questions they were asked to decide, including whether Meta and YouTube were negligent and a substantial factor in the harm she experienced, according to a firm representing the plaintiff. During the trial, Kaley and her therapist testified about her struggles with body dysmorphia and compulsive use of the platforms. Two jurors favored the defense, but the verdict did not require a unanimous decision.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day,” the co-lead counsels for plaintiffs in the series of California state cases including Kaley’s. “But this verdict is bigger than one case. For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived.”

A separate jury in New Mexico delivered a verdict yesterday in a similar case, determining that Meta had willfully violated state law by misleading consumers about the safety of its products.

Thousands of cases brought by individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general are part of two different groups of complaints filed in the LA state court and a federal court in Oakland, CA. The outcome in Kaley’s case — and the next bellwether cases, the first of which is slated to begin in July — will help attorneys representing both sides understand how juries are likely to rule on novel questions of product liability. Attorneys are especially interested to see how it relates to the legal shield Section 230 that has protected social media companies from being held responsible for their users’ posts and content moderation. The result could be a global settlement of these cases that may include changes to the platforms themselves.