Landmark Meta and Google case poised to have ‘significant’ implications for Australia

The case revolved around a 20-year-old woman, known as Kaley, who claimed she became addicted to platforms like YouTube and Instagram from a young age.

She argued that design features – such as the notorious “infinite scroll” – were deliberately created to capture attention and keep users engaged for hours, fuelling her prolonged use and addiction.

After nearly nine days of deliberation, the jury found that both parent companies had been negligent in the design of their apps and had failed to adequately warn users of the associated risks.

Kaley was subsequently awarded US$3 million in compensatory damages, along with an additional US$3 million in punitive damages.

Liability was split between Meta Platforms – which owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp – accounting for 70 per cent, and Google, the parent company of YouTube, responsible for the remaining 30 per cent.

Although the case unfolded in the US, its outcome has captured the attention of Australian lawyers, sparking discussions about the potential ripple effects on domestic legal frameworks and whether similar claims could succeed under local law.

VIEW ALL

Victoria-Jane Otavski, managing partner at BlackBay Lawyers, described the outcome of the case as “significant”, noting that it effectively opens the door to “a legal pathway for a claim of that type” to be pursued in Australia.

“Once social media platforms were framed as engineered products, designed to maximise engagement rather than passively host content, liability followed. The harm was treated as a function of design, not an unintended by-product,” she said.

Otavski explained that the reasoning underpinning the US decision could translate “readily” into the Australian context, where established consumer law frameworks governing defective products could increasingly extend to algorithm-driven platforms.

“That reasoning translates readily within Australia. The Australian Consumer Law already imposes strict liability for products with safety defects, assessed against community expectations,” Otavski said.

“There is a credible argument that algorithm-driven platforms, particularly those deployed to children, fall squarely within that framework.

“Australia has also moved faster than most jurisdictions on the regulatory front with the under-16 social media ban, but regulation and civil liability are different animals. The US verdict opens the door to individual damages claims.”

With a large pool of potentially affected users and the harms of social media well documented, Otavski stressed that if a litigation funder backs a representative claim for minors, it may only be a “matter of when” before Australia sees a case of this scale.

“As for Australia, the demographic of affected users is likely large, and the harm that can flow from social platforms is well documented, and so I believe that the causal link between platform design and psychological injury is becoming increasingly difficult for tech companies to deny,” Otavski said.

“Whether we see a direct equivalent here will depend on appetite. If a litigation funder backs a well-constructed representative proceeding on behalf of minors, it is more a matter of when than if.”

Justine Munsie, partner at Addisons, echoed this sentiment, noting that the US ruling could open the door for similar claims in Australia, providing a clear roadmap that brings such cases within closer reach.

“The US decision may prompt similar claims to be made here by Australian social media users. The documents [that] were disclosed during the case and the findings as to intention will make that one step easier,” Munsie said.

However, she warned that jurisdictional hurdles could make pursuing cases against global tech giants in Australia far more complex.

“Unlike the US plaintiffs, however, Australians may face difficulties compelling the media giants to accept jurisdiction of the Australian courts,” Munsie said.

Munsie also warned that even if tech giants can be brought before Australian courts, claimants face an uphill battle proving that companies like Meta and Google owe a duty of care – particularly when convincing a judge, rather than a jury, of the legal principles at stake.

“Assuming they can, they will need to demonstrate that companies like Meta and Google owe a duty of care to their Australian users,” Munsie said.

“We’ve seen in similar claims made [by] gamblers who allege that betting companies are responsible for their addiction that these cases are not easily proven, especially where a judge (not an American jury) needs to be persuaded of the legal principles.”