A jury in Los Angeles County has delivered a pivotal verdict in a civil lawsuit that targeted Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube. This landmark case, brought by K.G.M., a now 20-year-old woman, is the first of many similar lawsuits progressing through the court systems, alleging that major social media companies contribute to addiction and mental health issues among minors.
The plaintiff argued that design elements such as endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and push notifications were intentionally created to promote excessive usage among youth. Her testimony highlighted a direct link between these features and her struggles with depression and anxiety during her younger years.
The trial commenced in February 2026 and spanned around seven weeks, overseen by Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl. It included expert evidence from addiction specialists and testimonies from Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Internal documents revealing strategies to capture younger users were also presented to the jury.
After extensive deliberations, the jury found both companies negligent in their platform designs, recognizing these features as a significant influence on the plaintiff’s health issues.
The jury ultimately mandated that Meta and YouTube pay $3 million in damages, with Meta held primarily responsible for $2.1 million and YouTube ordered to pay $900,000. A subsequent phase is expected to consider punitive damages based on findings related to malice or fraud.
Snap and TikTok reached settlements before the trial began.
The lead attorney for the plaintiff remarked that the verdict serves as a significant message of accountability for the social media industry. Meanwhile, spokespeople for both companies expressed disagreement with the ruling and indicated plans to appeal.
As post-trial motions are anticipated, including requests for judgments notwithstanding the verdict, the appellate process could extend for an additional year or more, potentially affecting the final impact of the ruling. Analysts suggest that the verdict might shape future settlement deliberations and outcomes in similar ongoing cases.
