A California jury has found Meta and Google legally responsible for designing features on Instagram and YouTube that a plaintiff said produced addictive behavior and lasting psychological harm. The verdict in Los Angeles Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, identified as KGM, $6 million total — $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Jurors apportioned responsibility at 70 percent to Meta ($4.2 million) and 30 percent to Google ($1.8 million). Deliberations over punitive damages reportedly ran more than 40 hours.
The 20-year-old plaintiff testified she began using the platforms at age six and later suffered anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts. She told the court she felt panic when separated from her phone, became obsessed with likes and notifications, and had uploaded more than 300 YouTube videos by the time she was 10.
Jurors concluded the companies failed to warn users about risks tied to features such as autoplay, infinite scroll and engagement-maximizing recommendation algorithms. The trial included testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri; Mosseri described what has been called “social media addiction” as problematic usage. A Google representative said the case focused on YouTube, which the company views primarily as a streaming platform rather than a conventional social network.
TikTok and Snapchat were also named in the litigation but reached pretrial settlements. Meta said it plans to appeal, with a spokesperson expressing disagreement with the verdict and emphasizing the complexity of teen mental health.
Legal experts say the decision could influence other suits and policy debates by chipping away at protections platforms have long relied on, including arguments tied to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Advocates and policymakers watching the case say it may increase pressure for stricter age verification, stronger content controls, limits on attention-maximizing features, and greater platform accountability as regulators and courts weigh technology’s role in youth mental health.
