Social media giant Meta Platforms has requested a Los Angeles judge to dismiss the jury verdict holding the company liable for depression in an unprecedented case on whether the social media platforms are designed to be addictive and have caused harm to young people.

In its motion filed on Monday, the company asked for the ruling of liability in its favour or for a new trial hearing from the presiding judge in the case.

As stated in the March judgment, Meta and YouTube parent company Google had not done enough to avoid the harmfulness of their products, having been negligent regarding the design of their platforms and the absence of any warnings. The court found Meta liable for $4.2 million in damages and Google liable for $1.8 million. Also, Google said that it will challenge the jury verdict in court. Both Snapchat and TikTok were also part of the legal action, but the two companies reached a settlement with the plaintiff.

According to Meta, it is protected from the suit filed against it by Kaley G.M. because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is a federal law dating back to 1996. According to the company, the evidence adduced during the case showed the link between Kaley’s psychological problems and the content she consumed, not the platform designs, such as autoplay and infinite scroll.

The lawyers representing Kaley G.M. have yet to provide any response to the reports about the lawsuit filed against them. Meta, YouTube and several other social networking sites are currently dealing with thousands of similar lawsuits filed by families and individuals in federal and state courts across the country. Several other states and school districts have also filed suits against social networking sites due to their addictive design.

LA’s case was a bellwether for state court cases because it can serve as a test case in helping negotiations on the issue in other lawsuits as well. For the most part, judges in lower courts have not accepted the defendants’ attempt to prove that the applicability of section 230 bars their claims, but it can be presumed that the interpretation of the statute, whose wide-ranging implications are expected by experts to affect numerous online businesses, will be a significant part of the appeal.