A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately engineering addictive products that caused lasting harm to a young woman, delivering what is widely regarded as a watershed moment in the legal battle over the social media industry’s impact on children’s mental health.
The 12-person jury at Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the companies’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff and that both firms had failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of their platforms. Jurors returned a 10–2 split verdict in favour of the plaintiff on every question put to them, after nearly 44 hours of deliberations spread across nine days.
The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and a further $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta bearing 70% of the liability and YouTube the remaining 30%. Jurors also found that the companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud, which underpinned the punitive award. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old Californian woman identified throughout proceedings by her initials KGM, alleged that early use of Instagram and YouTube had made her addicted to both platforms, contributing to depression, body dysmorphic disorder and suicidal ideation.
KGM testified that she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram when she was 11, and that the platforms had drawn her into compulsive use that eroded her sense of self-worth as she compared herself to others and relied on beauty filters to alter her appearance. By her early teens she had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, which she attributed to her use of the two platforms.
READ – Meta Warns Aussie Teens of Imminent Account Lockouts
The legal approach taken by KGM’s lawyers proved decisive. Rather than focusing on the content that users encounter on social media — a strategy historically vulnerable to dismissal under Section 230 of the Communications Act, which shields internet companies from liability for third-party content — the case placed its focus squarely on how the platforms were designed. The jury concluded that Meta’s apps, including Instagram, and Google’s YouTube were deliberately built to be addictive, and that executives at both companies were aware of this and failed to protect younger users. Features such as infinite scroll, video autoplay and notification-driven engagement were held up as deliberate mechanisms to sustain compulsive use. Lead counsel for KGM drew an explicit parallel with the engineering of nicotine dependency, framing the design choices as calculated rather than incidental.
The trial is one of three cases selected from thousands as bellwether proceedings intended to test a new theory of liability — namely that the structural design of social media platforms is itself harmful, independent of the content they carry. The verdict does not automatically determine the outcome of the wider litigation, as individual plaintiffs in other cases still need to demonstrate a causal link between their specific mental health outcomes and their platform use. Nevertheless, the result is a significant boost for tech accountability advocates and could prompt companies to settle cases rather than contest them individually, given the scale of potential damages across thousands of pending claims.
The timing of the verdict compounded pressure on Meta in particular. The Los Angeles ruling came just one day after a separate jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after finding the company had misled consumers about platform safety and enabled child sexual exploitation. The back-to-back judgements represent the first occasions on which juries have found Meta liable for the effect of its products on young people. Meta said it intends to appeal both verdicts. The company maintained that adolescent mental health is deeply complex and cannot be attributed to any single application, and argued throughout the trial that KGM’s difficulties were rooted in a difficult home environment rather than social media use. YouTube also said it would appeal, with a company spokesperson arguing that the verdict fundamentally mischaracterises the platform, which it described as a streaming service rather than a social media site.
As NPR reported, the consolidated litigation in California encompasses more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including more than 350 families and 250 school districts, with cases filed against Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap. TikTok and Snap settled their involvement in KGM’s case before it reached trial. The next bellwether case is scheduled for July, with a separate federal proceeding involving hundreds of plaintiffs due to begin in San Francisco in June. The verdicts arrive as school districts and state legislatures across the United States are already moving to restrict or ban mobile phone use in schools, and legal observers suggest the Los Angeles outcome could accelerate both regulatory and legislative pressure on the wider social media sector.
ALSO READ – Meta Found Guilty Of Collecting Private Menstrual Data