Meta, Google Found Liable in Social Media Addiction Case (3)

Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google must pay damages to a 20-year-old woman who said her addiction to social media caused her mental health crisis, a jury said in a landmark ruling that could signal hefty risks for the companies as they fight thousands of similar claims.

Wednesday’s verdict in Los Angeles on the ninth day of jury deliberations shows the difficulty of ascribing how much social media is to blame for youths suffering varying degrees of distress. But it also highlights the multibillion-dollar exposure from suits which claim that Instagram, YouTube and other platforms are intentionally designed to addict young users without regard for their well-being.

Two other bellwether cases are scheduled to go to trial in California state court this year. Defeats for the companies could spur settlement negotiations — possibly leading to a broad agreement akin to the deals that tarnished the tobacco and opioid industries.

The lawsuits have been filed by children, adolescents and young adults — sometimes via their parents, siblings or other family members — and are based on claims of psychological distress, physical impairment and death by suicide.

“It’s clear that juries are concerned,” said Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at Santa Clara University School of Law, who has taught and researched internet law for more than 30 years. They are “willing to attach large damage awards.”

Jurors said Meta must pay at least $2.1 million in damages to compensate the plaintiff, Kaley G.M., for her losses, including the cost of therapy, and Google must pay at least $900,000. The jury heard more arguments after the verdict Wednesday on whether to also impose punitive damages on the companies.

In the first case of its kind to go to trial, the 12-person jury found that Meta and Google were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and should have warned that their products might be dangerous for minors. Unlike criminal cases, some civil lawsuits don’t require unanimous verdicts. Jurors voted 10-2 to hold both companies liable.

Kaley — who said she started watching videos on YouTube at age six and began using the Instagram photo-sharing app at nine years old — blamed the platforms for various harms, including anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. She was present in the courtroom to hear the verdicts, but didn’t show any reaction.

Watch Bloomberg Originals’ Documentary: Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” Meta said in a statement.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” said Jose Castañeda, a Google spokesperson. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

Read More: Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Watch: Social-Media Addiction Suits

Kaley’s lawyers said in statement the verdict sends “an unmistakable message.”

“Today, a jury saw the truth and held Meta and Google accountable for designing products that addict and harm children,” according to the statement.

The trial was seen as a critical test of the novel legal arguments behind a flood of cases filed over the last three years against Meta, Google, Snap Inc. and TikTok Inc. alleging that the designs of the platforms, not their content, are causing young people harm. TikTok and Snap reached confidential settlements with Kaley ahead of trial, but they remain defendants in the broader group of lawsuits.

In addition to the cases in Los Angeles, social media companies face consumer protection suits by about three dozen state attorneys general and public nuisance suits by more than 1,000 public school districts across the US that are grouped before a federal judge in Oakland, California. Those cases, which are expected to start going to trial later this year, also expose the tech giants to billions of dollars in damages and potential changes in how the platforms operate.

Wednesday’s verdict is the second loss for Meta this week. On Tuesday, a jury in New Mexico found that the company misled teenagers in the state about the safety of its social networks, even when it knew Facebook and Instagram had become breeding grounds for sexual predators. Jurors awarded civil penalties totaling $375 million.

In Los Angeles, Kaley’s lawyers argued that by engineering the platforms to be so hard to resist, the companies are causing serious harm to young users, who are particularly vulnerable to addiction because their brains are still developing.

The lawyers didn’t target the content that users post on the platforms because internet companies are generally protected from being sued over third-party content.

Instead, the trial focused on the software features the companies built into their products that allegedly make them addictive — including notifications, likes, comments, infinite or endless scroll, autoplay videos and beauty filters that change an individual’s appearance.

Read More: Zuckerberg Says ‘Difficult’ to Enforce Instagram Age Limits

Over the monthlong trial, jurors heard testimony from Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram Head Adam Mosseri, various mental health experts and Kaley herself, who spoke about the impact of the features.

Kaley’s lead attorney, Mark Lanier, argued that the platforms were designed like casinos, where every scroll or new notification triggers a dopamine hit in a user’s brain.

During closing arguments, he said “these aren’t apps, these become traps” that tech companies set to lure young users to their sites and keep them there for as long as possible, in order to maximize profits. He called it “addiction by design.”

Meta and Google both denied that they were to blame for Kaley’s struggles. Attorneys for Meta said other influences contributed to her psychological distress, including strife at home, difficulties at school and bullying by her peers.

Read More: Meta, Google Pivot in Addiction Trial to Accuser’s History

Lawyers for both companies stressed that records from Kaley’s therapists and other medical professionals didn’t show that she was addicted to social media, and included references to positive associations she had with both platforms.

One report from a doctor said that Instagram was a positive feature in Kaley’s life that allowed her to express her creativity. Another said that she watched videos on YouTube to help her fall asleep at night.

Google attorney Luis Li distinguished between YouTube and Instagram, arguing that the video-streaming platform isn’t social media. He also pointed out that Kaley’s peak usage of YouTube occurred when she was eight years old, and declined as she got older. She now spends much of her time on the platform listening to music.

Jurors received frequent instruction from the judge and lawyers that they were ignore content-related issues when weighing a verdict. They were told they could not hold either company responsible for failing to remove certain content or allowing some content to be private or disappear after a set period of time.

--With assistance from Alexandra S. Levine.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Madlin Mekelburg in Austin at mmekelburg@bloomberg.net;
Maia Spoto in Los Angeles at mspoto4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Ben Bain at bbain2@bloomberg.net;
Molly Smith at msmith604@bloomberg.net

Peter Blumberg, Steve Stroth

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.