This verdict has already been talked about on SN (#1460450, #1460237) but the linked Reason article has a nice collection of links in it.

This sounds like hyperbole. But one does wonder how far it is from reality:

anyone who's ever spent too much time on social media—or simply suffered any setbacks while simultaneously having social media accounts—can claim "addiction" and reasonably expect a big payout. A landmark verdict in California has paved the way for that, and worse.

A girl claimed that she was addicted to all the social media platforms and that this led to "depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia." Living in California, she naturally sued Google, Meta, TikTok and Snap. The latter two settled out of court. Google and Meta went to court.

They lost.

Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta [(META.O), opens new tab and Alphabet's Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, in a $6 million verdict that will serve ‌as a bellwether for numerous similar cases.

The jury found Meta liable for $4.2 million in damages and Google for $1.8 million
-Reuters

In, what is perhaps the most shocking turn of events, even Taylor Lorenz is speaking sanely about this:

source

Do I detect a hint of age-verification?

Kaley's lawyers pushed their product liability theory, in part, by arguing that Meta and Google designed their products to be engaging and failed to design them in a way that would limit excessive use by teenagers.

Does this mean it's open season on platforms?

"Cases like this will likely unleash a trial lawyer bonanza via a much broader wave of (mostly frivolous) lawsuits," predicts R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer. "Every tort lawyer in America is probably thinking about ripping down their 'Been in a Crash?' billboards right now and replacing them with 'Addicted to the Internet?' signs."

I'm feeling more tinfoil hat than I was this morning: seems like everything is lining up nicely for kyc internet.