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.
Arturo Bejar, who used to work at Instagram, said he warned Mark Zuckerberg of the dangers it posed to children several years ago.
“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 in 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.