A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta and Google liable in a case accusing Instagram and YouTube of being designed to encourage compulsive use by minors, and it awarded $3 million in compensatory damages to a California woman identified in court as K.G.M. The jury assigned 70% of the compensatory damages to Meta and 30% to Google.
The decision followed about a month of testimony and evidence, then nine days of deliberations totaling roughly 43 hours. The jury also found the companies acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud,” clearing the way for a separate punitive damages phase that has not yet been decided.
K.G.M., now 20, told jurors she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and that she spent much of her childhood on social media. Her lawsuit alleged that platform design choices encouraged addictive behavior that contributed to depression and suicidal thoughts while she was a minor.
Social media addiction trial verdict and damages
The jury found both companies negligent in how they designed or operated their platforms for young users and concluded their conduct was a substantial factor in harming the plaintiff. Jurors also found that both companies failed to adequately warn users, including minors, about risks tied to the platforms’ use.
Compensatory damages are meant to address harm already suffered, such as emotional distress and other impacts presented at trial. The jury’s punitive finding is separate and addresses whether the companies’ conduct was sufficiently blameworthy to justify an additional monetary penalty designed to punish and deter.
Meta said it disagreed with the verdict and is evaluating legal options. Google did not immediately issue a detailed response in the initial reporting of the decision.
What jurors found about Instagram and YouTube design
The case focused on product design, not on holding the companies responsible for individual posts or videos. The plaintiff’s attorneys highlighted features they said were engineered to maximize time spent on the apps, including endless feeds, autoplay, and notifications that draw users back repeatedly.
Jurors heard arguments that these features can be particularly powerful for children and teenagers, who may have less ability to self-regulate use, especially when content is served in a continuous stream with few natural stopping points. The plaintiff argued she was pushed into “all day” use, and that the platforms’ design rewarded prolonged scrolling and watching.
The defense argued that the platforms provide safety tools and parental controls, and that social media use alone cannot explain a young person’s mental health challenges. The companies also argued that families, schools and health systems all play roles in adolescent well-being, and that correlating mental health struggles with app use does not prove causation in an individual case.
The jury’s verdict rejected the companies’ central liability defenses on negligence and failure to warn, at least for the plaintiff’s circumstances, while leaving the punitive damages question for a later decision.
