The social media addiction lawsuit verdict could reshape how tech companies design platforms and face legal accountability for mental health harms.
After deliberating for nine days—and emerging at one point to tell the judge that it was having a difficult time reaching a decision—a jury in Los Angeles finally returned its verdict today, finding both Meta and Google liable for creating addictive products that caused a young woman’s mental-health problems.
The two companies were ordered to pay $3 million in compensatory damages: 70 percent by Meta and 30 percent by Google. (Meta-owned Instagram played a larger role in the complaint than Google-owned YouTube, which explains the split.) This is hardly any money to either of these companies—Meta alone brought in nearly $60 billion in revenue over the last three months of 2025. But the verdict will lead others to pursue similar cases against tech companies (thousands are already pending), and possibly result in changes to the design of social-media apps.
Following the verdict’s announcement, Matthew Bergman, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers and the founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, sent a lengthy statement to reporters. “This verdict carries implications far beyond this courtroom,” it read in part. “It establishes a framework for how similar cases across the country will be evaluated and demonstrates that juries are willing to hold technology companies accountable when the evidence shows foreseeable harm.” A Meta spokesperson sent a shorter statement: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” And the Google spokesperson José Castañeda said that Google will appeal the verdict, adding, “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
In California, a victory for private litigation on addiction harms
A jury in Los Angeles found on Wednesday that Meta and YouTube harmed a 20-year-old woman, identified in the case as KGM, when she was younger by using features like auto-play and infinite scroll to intentionally keep her hooked on their platforms, harming her mental health.
The jury found the companies liable on all counts, including negligence in their design choices, failing to warn users of risks and causing substantial harm to the plaintiff. Under the verdict, Meta is responsible for 70% of the $3 million in compensatory damages and YouTube is responsible for the remaining 30%.
Tech companies have disputed claims that their platforms are inherently addictive while acknowledging some “problematic” use. Google and Meta said they plan to appeal the decision.
Prior to the California trial, two of the other companies the plaintiff had sued, TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap, settled the lawsuit for undisclosed terms.
The civil case is one of hundreds heading to trial to argue that Big Tech companies, like Big Tobacco in years past, have created addictive products that harm users and misled or hid information about their dangers in a bid to drive up consumption.
Many, like the most recent case in California, rely on another novel legal theory that social media companies can cause personal injury to users.
The latest verdict could foreshadow additional defeats in similar cases around the country, the number of which has ballooned in recent years. If it does, it could increase companies’ financial exposure as damages add up or raise the pressure on them to change their commercial practices.
Addiction on Trial: How Social Media Ended Up in a California Courtroom
