BREAKING: Meta, YouTube found liable in landmark Social Media addiction trial

A California jury delivers a historic verdict against the tech giants, ruling that platform design features contributed to harm against a young user, in a decision poised to reshape the legal landscape for an industry long shielded from liability.

A Los Angeles jury has found both Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media addiction trial, delivering a verdict that could fundamentally reshape how technology companies design their platforms and face accountability for the mental health of young users .

The decision, reached after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, marks the first time a jury has held major social media platforms legally responsible for features alleged to be deliberately addictive.

The verdict comes one day after a separate New Mexico jury found Meta liable for harming children’s mental health and concealing child sexual exploitation, ordering the company to pay $375 million in penalties.

The California case, formally styled K.G.M. v. Meta & YouTube, was brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley, who testified that she became addicted to social media beginning at age six with YouTube videos, later adding Instagram at age nine.

She described spending “all day long” on the platforms as a child, telling jurors that the apps fueled depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

Unlike previous lawsuits against tech companies, which often foundered on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, the plaintiffs in this case deliberately targeted product design rather than content.

Lawyers for Kaley, led by prominent trial attorney Mark Lanier, argued that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications were engineered to “hook” young users in ways akin to addictive substances.

“This case is historic no matter what happens because it was the first,” Laura Marquez-Garrett, an attorney with the Social Media Victims Law Center and counsel of record for Kaley, said during deliberations, emphasizing the significance of getting Meta and Google’s internal documents into the public record.

The trial featured testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who were called to answer questions under oath about the inner workings of their platforms. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

During the proceedings, internal Meta documents revealed during the case reportedly showed company executives comparing user engagement to addictive behaviours, demonstrating how platform design encourages prolonged scrolling.

Lawyers for Kaley argued that the platforms functioned as “digital candy for the brain,” intentionally exploiting the vulnerabilities of young users.

Defense attorneys for both companies pushed back forcefully. Meta argued that Kaley’s mental health struggles stemmed from a turbulent home life rather than social media use, noting that none of her therapists had identified social media as a primary cause.

The company also pointed to its available safety features and parental controls as evidence of responsible design .

YouTube’s defense focused on distinguishing its platform from social media, arguing it functions more like traditional television.

The company presented data showing that Kaley spent approximately one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since the feature’s launch in 2020.

The jury was instructed not to consider the actual content Kaley viewed on the platforms, a directive designed to preserve the distinction between content liability, shielded by Section 230 and product liability.

Instead, jurors were asked to determine whether Meta and YouTube knew or should have known that their platforms posed dangers to children, and whether negligent design was a “substantial factor” in causing Kaley’s harm.

The verdict could set a binding precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits pending against social media companies across the United States, including cases brought by state attorneys general, school districts, and families who have lost children to suicide or other harms linked to platform use.

At least half of American teens use YouTube or Instagram daily, according to the Pew Research Center.

TikTok and Snap were originally named as defendants in the California case but settled with the plaintiff before the trial began. Terms of those settlements were not disclosed.

The New Mexico verdict, delivered on Tuesday, found that Meta had engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of children’s vulnerabilities and that the company had made false or misleading statements about platform safety.

Jurors in that case awarded $375 million in penalties, representing the maximum $5,000 per violation based on the estimated number of affected teenagers.

In a statement following the New Mexico verdict, a Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the outcome and would appeal.