In a landmark decision that could reshape the future of social media, a Los Angeles jury on March 25, 2026, found Meta and YouTube liable for causing harm to a young woman through the addictive design of their platforms. The verdict, which awarded the plaintiff $3 million in damages, marks the first time major social media companies have been held accountable by a U.S. jury for the mental health impacts of their products on children and teenagers, according to POLITICO, BBC, and the Associated Press.
The case centered on a 20-year-old California woman identified as Kaley, or by her initials KGM in court documents, who claimed that her childhood use of YouTube and Instagram led to addiction and worsened her mental health struggles. The jury deliberated for more than 40 hours over nine days before concluding that both Meta—owner of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp—and Google’s YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms. The jurors found that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley’s harm, with Meta deemed 70% responsible and YouTube 30%.
Kaley’s story is both personal and emblematic of a broader societal concern. She testified that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, spending “all day long” on social media as a child. By age ten, she began experiencing anxiety and depression, later diagnosed by a therapist. Kaley also developed body dysmorphia, a condition that causes excessive worry about physical appearance, which her lawyers linked to social media features like Instagram filters and the relentless comparison culture fostered by these platforms. “I stopped engaging with family because I was spending all my time on social media,” Kaley told the court, as reported by BBC.
The lawsuit alleged that specific design features—such as infinite scrolling feeds, autoplay, and persistent notifications—were intentionally crafted to “hook” young users and maximize their time on the platforms. Lawyers for Kaley argued that Meta and YouTube prioritized growth and engagement, especially among young people, because they were more likely to become long-term users. Expert witnesses and former executives testified that these addictive mechanisms were not accidental, but rather a core part of the platforms’ business models.
During the trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand, defending the company’s policies that prohibit users under 13 but acknowledging internal research showing that many younger children still accessed the platforms. “I always wished for faster progress to identify users under 13,” Zuckerberg said, maintaining that Meta had ultimately reached “the right place over time.” Despite these statements, the jury determined that Meta and YouTube knew the design or operation of their platforms was dangerous or likely to be dangerous when used by minors, and that they failed to provide adequate warnings—a finding that opens the door to punitive damages in the next phase of the trial.
Both companies swiftly rejected the jury’s findings and vowed to appeal. A Meta spokesperson stated, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” Meta has consistently argued that “teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” adding that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of Kaley’s struggles. Google spokesperson José Castañeda echoed this sentiment, insisting, “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.” YouTube’s defense also emphasized that Kaley’s use of YouTube declined as she grew older and pointed to the platform’s safety features and parental controls.
Notably, TikTok and Snap—initially named as co-defendants—settled with Kaley before the trial began, leaving only Meta and YouTube to face the jury. The trial itself was selected as a bellwether, meaning its outcome could influence the direction of more than 1,600 similar lawsuits pending in state and federal courts across the United States. Plaintiffs in these cases range from families to school districts, all alleging that social media platforms have contributed to a crisis in youth mental health.
The verdict in Los Angeles arrived just one day after a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for endangering children and exposing them to sexual predators on its platforms, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. In that case, state investigators posed as children online and documented the sexual solicitations they received, as well as Meta’s response. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez described the back-to-back verdicts as a “wake-up call” for the tech industry, telling POLITICO, “It’s time to change the way these companies do business.”
For parents and advocates who have spent years raising alarms about the dangers of social media, the Los Angeles ruling was cause for celebration. Outside the courthouse, parents who claim their children were also harmed by social media gathered in support, hugging and shedding tears of relief as the decision was announced. Amy Neville, one of the parents present, described the verdict as “a referendum—from a jury to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived.”
Legal experts and industry observers say the verdict could have far-reaching consequences. Mike Proulx, a research director for Forrester, noted that negative sentiment toward social media “has been building for years, and now it’s finally boiled over.” The decision could prompt further lawsuits, force tech companies to redesign addictive features, or even lead to sweeping settlements reminiscent of the tobacco and opioid litigation of past decades.
Yet, the path forward is anything but clear. Both Meta and Google have made it known that they intend to fight the ruling vigorously, and the companies continue to defend the safety measures and parental controls built into their platforms. They also point to the broader complexities of teen mental health, suggesting that attributing harm to a single cause oversimplifies the issue.
Meanwhile, the next phase of the Los Angeles trial will determine punitive damages, which under California law could reach up to $30 million. The court may also consider whether Meta and YouTube should be required to redesign aspects of their platforms to minimize harm to young users. And with another high-profile case set to begin in California federal court this June, the debate over social media’s role in children’s mental health is far from over.
As the tech giants brace for more legal challenges and public scrutiny, this verdict stands as a pivotal moment—one that could fundamentally alter the relationship between Silicon Valley and the millions of young people who use their platforms every day.