In a verdict that could reverberate across Silicon Valley and beyond, a Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta—the parent company of Instagram—and YouTube liable for creating platforms that fostered harmful and addictive behavior in young users. The landmark decision, delivered after more than seven weeks of intense courtroom drama and over 40 hours of jury deliberations, awarded a total of $6 million in damages to the lead plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley (or KGM in court documents), who argued that her early and prolonged use of Instagram and YouTube led to severe mental health struggles, including depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts.
The case, heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court under Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, marks the first time a jury has held major social media companies responsible for the design and operation of their platforms—not merely the content posted by users. According to CBS News and The Los Angeles Times, the jury found Meta 70% responsible and YouTube 30% responsible for the harm Kaley endured. The $6 million award includes $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, split $2.1 million for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube.
Kaley's journey with social media began early. She testified that she started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, well before Instagram’s minimum age requirement of 13. In her testimony, she described the emotional highs triggered by likes and notifications, which kept her glued to her phone and, as she alleged, contributed to her mental health decline. "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing the addictive and dangerous design features built into their platforms," her attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement reported by CBS News. "Today, we finally have accountability."
The trial, which began in late January 2026, saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri take the stand, a rare public grilling for two of the industry's most prominent figures. Both faced pointed questions about whether their companies had intentionally designed apps to maximize the time young people spent online, and whether they did enough to keep underage users off the platforms. Zuckerberg admitted the challenge of age verification, stating, "There are a meaningful number of people who lie about their age to use our services."
The heart of the case involved two main allegations: that Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing their platforms and that they failed to warn users—particularly minors—about the potential health risks. Unlike previous lawsuits that have been deflected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields tech companies from liability for third-party content, this case homed in on the addictive design of the platforms themselves. This legal distinction, experts say, could set the stage for a flood of similar lawsuits nationwide.
Indeed, legal observers are already drawing comparisons to the tobacco industry lawsuits of the 1990s, which fundamentally altered how cigarette companies operated and marketed their products. Clay Calvert, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told CBS News, "It definitely could open the floodgates of litigation. It will certainly trigger more." Hundreds of similar suits are already consolidated in California state court, with more pending in the federal system—the first of which is set for trial in June in San Francisco.
The verdict comes on the heels of another major legal blow for Meta. Just a day before the Los Angeles decision, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for violating state child exploitation laws and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez had argued that Instagram had become a "breeding ground" for child predators. Meta, for its part, has vowed to appeal both verdicts. Company spokesperson Andy Stone said on X (formerly Twitter), "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
Throughout the Los Angeles trial, Meta and YouTube maintained that Kaley's struggles stemmed from family history, learning disabilities, and the broader social fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic—not from social media use. "Not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause," a Meta spokesperson said to CBS News. Defense lawyers leaned on digital presentations and expert testimony to argue that there is no formal diagnosis for social media addiction and that Kaley had never been treated for such a condition. YouTube’s legal team, for example, insisted that its platform is fundamentally different from Instagram and other social media sites, describing it as “a toy that a child liked and then put down.”
Yet, the jury was not convinced. Testimony from mental health specialists, including Victoria Burke, a former therapist who worked with Kaley, suggested that her sense of self and mood were closely tied to her activity on social media. Burke noted that social media "could make or break her mood." The plaintiff’s team also pointed to internal documents made public during the trial, which they argued showed that Meta and YouTube were aware of the risks to minors but prioritized profit over safety. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier used memorable analogies—such as a glass jar filled with 415 peanut M&Ms to symbolize Alphabet’s $415 billion in stockholder equity—to drive home the scale of the companies' resources and the need for meaningful accountability.
The trial was not without its dramatic moments. Jurors at one point told the judge they were struggling to reach consensus on one defendant, and observers in the courtroom wept as the verdict was read, despite Judge Kuhl’s warnings to remain composed. The verdict was ultimately reached by majority, not unanimous, vote—reflecting the complexity and emotion surrounding the issue.
Snapchat and TikTok, also named in the original complaint, settled with Kaley for undisclosed sums before the trial began. Attorneys for both companies were present in court as the verdict was delivered, underlining the broader implications for the entire tech industry.
Experts expect the verdict to reshape the debate over social media addiction, the responsibilities of tech companies, and the legal protections that have so far shielded them. As Lexi Hazam, co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in a related federal action, told The Los Angeles Times, "This verdict sends an unmistakable message that no company is above accountability."
With Meta and YouTube vowing to appeal, the legal battles are far from over. But for Kaley and the thousands of other plaintiffs waiting in the wings, Wednesday’s decision marks a watershed moment in the fight to hold social media giants responsible for the impact of their products on young lives.