Meta and Google found negligent in social media addiction trial

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in a landmark trial concerning social media addiction. The jury ordered the companies to pay $3 million in compensatory damages—which are funds awarded to a plaintiff to compensate for specific injuries or losses. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of K.G.M., a plaintiff also known as Kaley, who is now 20 years old. The legal action, which took place in Los Angeles County Superior Court, argued that the social media platforms played a major role in harming her mental health during her youth.

The financial impact of the verdict is divided between the two tech giants, with Meta bearing 70% of the compensatory damages. Following further jury deliberations, the total financial penalties increased due to punitive damages—which are damages exceeding simple compensation that are awarded to punish a defendant. The final damages are structured as follows:

• Meta’s total damages: $4.2 million
• YouTube’s total damages: $1.8 million

Prior to the trial, social media companies TikTok and Snap, which were also named in the lawsuit, settled with the plaintiff.

The legal battle focused on the harms caused specifically by Instagram and YouTube. The plaintiff asserted that the platforms contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and other conditions during her youth. Lawyers for Meta tried to argue that other factors, such as her disruptive home life and her parents’ divorce, were more to blame for her mental health struggles rather than its applications. However, evidence presented during the trial showed that Meta understood how addictive its platforms could be for teenagers, actively researched the issue, and used its findings to increase engagement among young users.

Neither company is accepting the verdict, and both Meta and Google are expected to appeal. A Meta spokesperson stated that “the company disputes the outcome and is weighing its options” following the decision.

Why it matters

The ruling, alongside similar cases like the one in New Mexico, may establish a precedent that social media firms are responsible for platform-related harms, potentially triggering a new wave of litigation.