'The era of impunity is over': What next for big tech after landmark social media verdict?

It ruled those apps are addictive, and deliberately engineered that way, it ruled – and its owners have been negligent in their safeguarding of the children who have used them.

It's a sombre moment for Silicon Valley and the implications are global.

The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case.

She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Both companies intend to appeal, with Meta maintaining a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis.

Google, meanwhile, says YouTube is not a social network.

But for now the ruling means "the era of impunity is over" according to Dr Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University.

It's hard to overstate what a game changing moment this court verdict is for social media.

Whatever happens next, and there will undoubtedly be appeals and further legal processes – this is going to redefine the landscape.

It could even be the beginning of the end of the social media era as we know it.

The world's doomscrollers might not have been shocked by the verdict but I think the tech companies were.

Meta and Google racked up eye-watering legal fees defending this. This case, and others like it, are clearly of huge significance to them.

The other two companies in the trial – TikTok and Snap, the owner of Snapchat – settled before it went to court. There were mutterings in the tech sphere they couldn't afford the fight.

I had been invited to slick briefings about all the tools social networks offer (mainly to parents) to protect kids.

But ultimately the court ruled their measures were not enough.

"It changed from a product you used to a product that uses you," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday. Meta has denied his claims.

Some experts have described the verdict as big tech's "big tobacco" moment, and we know how that worked out: although it didn't stop people smoking altogether.

Could there be health warnings on screens? Restricted advertising and sponsorship opportunities?

The tech companies are currently legally protected the US by a clause known as Section 230: which shields them from liability for the content that is published on them. Other types of media companies do not have this benefit.

It is often said the tech industry couldn't survive without it - but scepticism over the shield may be growing, with Senate Commerce Committee having held a hearing to discuss it on Wednesday.

The tech leaders enjoy a generally cosy relationship with US President Donald Trump, who has championed the sector. He hasn't yet leapt to their defence.

Another option is that the platforms are forced to strip out all the features designed to keep people there.

But engagement is big tech's lifeblood.

Lose all the techniques: the endless scrolling, the algorithmic recommendations, the auto play, and you're left with a very different, and arguably limited, social media experience.

The success of big platforms lies in their footfall - keeping large numbers of people online for as long as possible and coming back as often as possible, in order that they might be targeted with as many ads as possible. That's how the companies make money.

In several territories, including the UK, children do not contribute to this advertising machine but only since regulators intervened.

However, today's children are tomorrow's adults and the ideal scenario for the tech companies is that they turn 18 established users already.

Facebook, Meta's original social network, is often jokingly referred to as the "boomer platform" - but 2025 figures suggest nearly half of its worldwide users are aged 18-35.

Kaley's court victory is now big tech's second defeat in a number of similar cases set for trial in the US this year. There's more to come.

"This landmark verdict, along with many other similar lawsuits against social media companies, signals a shift in how courts view platform design as a set of choices that can carry real legal and social consequences," said Dr Rob Nicholls of the University of Sydney.

"It opens the door to wider challenges against social media and other technology systems engineered to maximise engagement at the expense of user wellbeing."

And Australia, where Dr Nicholls lives, has already done exactly that.

In December it blocked under-16s from the biggest social platforms.

The UK and other countries are considering the same thing, - and this verdict certainly adds weight to the arguments in favour of that.

For parents who have already struggled with it, banning the platforms for children is a no-brainer.

"Just do it now," said bereaved British mum Ellen Roome recently.

Parliament, however, remains divided on what action to take.

The House of Lords and Commons are currently engaged in what is known as "ping pong" over a proposed amendment to the Children's Schools and Wellbeing Bill which would give ministers a year to decide which platforms to ban for Under 16s.

Perhaps the new verdict will unite the politicians and the peers, and not just in the UK: will we one day look back on this period of history and wonder why on earth we ever let children run free on social media?