YouTube has appealed the ruling in a landmark social media addiction case in Los Angeles, aiming to contest the jury's finding that the company deliberately designed its platform to captivate young users, with little regard for their well-being.

Lawyers for YouTube filed a notice of appeal on Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, just days after Meta, also a defendant in the case, filed its own notice of appeal.

The legal team is expected to present their arguments regarding the appeal in later court filings.

The case revolved around a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media as a child, which worsened her mental health issues.

The jury found that negligence by both Google-owned YouTube and Meta was a major factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.

The jury awarded her $3 million in compensatory damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages.

Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, stated in a press release last week following Meta’s appeal that Kaley’s legal team expects the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”

José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, stated in a statement last week that YouTube intended to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”

Meta and Google each filed post-trial motions requesting a new trial, which the trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied in early June.

During the five-week trial, one of YouTube's central arguments was that its platform, which facilitates video sharing and streaming, does not constitute a social media platform.

Throughout the trial, legal representatives from both YouTube and Meta repeatedly questioned whether the evidence and arguments infringed upon legal protections afforded to tech companies concerning content posted by third parties.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act exempts these companies from liability for such content.

In contrast, the plaintiff’s legal team concentrated on design features, such as autoplay functions, which they contended could foster more prolonged and less deliberate engagement with the platforms.

Kaley’s case represented a landmark lawsuit, and the verdict has the potential to shape the outcome of thousands of similar legal actions accusing social media companies of intentionally causing harm.

TikTok and Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each reached a settlement for undisclosed amounts before the trial commenced.