Jurors determine that social media platforms were a "substantial factor” in the plaintiff's depression and suicidal thoughts

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has returned a verdict ordering Meta Platforms Inc. and Google’s YouTube to pay more than $3 million in compensatory damages for deliberately designing addictive social media platforms that caused severe mental health harm to a young woman during her preteen and teenage years. Jurors found that Meta was 70% responsible and YouTube 30% responsible.

The jury will now move into a second phase regarding what level of punitive damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. The jurors affirmed all questions on the verdict form that the two companies acted with malice, oppression, and fraud in their conduct.

The trial was the first in a consolidated action to hold media companies responsible for the harm caused by their platform design choices. That litigation includes more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts from across the nation.

The plaintiff, a 20-year-old California woman identified in court by her initials K.G.M., testified that she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and that the platforms’ deliberately addictive design features -- including algorithmic content recommendations, beauty filters and push notifications -- caused her to develop anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

“This jury saw exactly what we presented from the very first day of trial: that these companies built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” said Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm and lead trial counsel.

“The evidence showed that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms were hooking children and harming their mental health, and instead of fixing the problem they kept developing features to maximize the time kids spent on their apps. Now a jury has told them that is not acceptable, and you are being held accountable,” he added.

The jury heard testimony from senior executives of both companies and expert witnesses in psychiatry and adolescent addiction. Key evidence and testimony included:

• Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified for approximately eight hours on Feb. 18 and 19, the first time he has testified about child safety before a jury. Under cross-examination by Mr. Lanier, Zuckerberg was confronted with internal documents showing that as of 2015, Meta estimated more than four million users under the age of 13 were on Instagram — representing approximately 30% of all 10- to 12-year-olds in the United States.
• Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified that even 16 hours of daily Instagram use by a teenager could be considered “problematic” but maintained the behavior should not be classified as “clinically addictive.” He acknowledged that Instagram’s advertising revenue model depends on user engagement.
• Plaintiffs introduced a Meta-sponsored study of 1,000 teenagers, which found that children who had experienced prior trauma were the most vulnerable to platform addiction and that traditional parental controls were largely ineffective once dependency was established. Additional internal communications were presented in which one employee described Instagram as “like a drug” and referred to the company as “basically pushers.”
• Dr. Kara Bagot, a psychiatrist specializing in adolescent addiction, testified about the neurological effects of social media on developing brains, explaining how platform features exploit the same dopamine-driven reward pathways as slot machines and other recognized forms of behavioral addiction.

“This verdict is for every child who has suffered because these multibillion-dollar companies decided that engagement metrics mattered more than the well-being of children,” said Rachel Lanier, managing attorney of The Lanier Law Firm’s Los Angeles office and co-lead trial counsel with Mr. Lanier. “These companies had internal research, and instead of warning parents they made a choice to keep profiting from features they knew were hurting kids."

The verdict against Meta and Google is expected to significantly influence settlement negotiations and trial outcomes in the remaining cases, as well as in the federal multidistrict litigation of more than 2,300 pending cases in the Northern District of California, the first of which is scheduled to begin in June 2026.

TikTok and Snap, who were original defendants in the case, each settled their individual claims on undisclosed terms with the plaintiff prior to trial.

For decades, technology companies relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to shield themselves from virtually all litigation related to their platforms. Plaintiff attorneys in this case successfully advanced a theory that treated social media platforms as defective products under California product liability law, focusing not on the content users posted, but on the design features the companies engineered to maximize engagement.

About Lanier Law Firm

The Lanier Law Firm is an award-winning national trial firm specializing in a variety of practice areas, including asbestos exposure, pharmaceutical liability, business litigation, and product liability. As one of the most experienced asbestos litigation law firms in the world, Lanier provides mesothelioma legal services in all 50 states. With talented attorneys in Houston, New York and Los Angeles, the firm has won more than $20 billion for clients since its founding in 1990. Learn more about the firm.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260325766197/en/

“This jury saw exactly what we presented from the very first day of trial: that these companies built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” said Mark Lanier.