Jurors agreed with a 20-year-old California woman that Google and Meta are liable for psychological harms she suffered after becoming addicted to their platform
LOS ANGELES—A Los Angeles jury on March 25 found Google and Meta liable for $6 million in damages in a landmark social media trial.
The case pitted a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as “Kaley G.M.” or “K.G.M” against the two tech giants, asking a jury whether the companies could be held accountable for psychological harms she suffered as a result of an addiction to their apps, YouTube and Instagram.
Of the $3 million in compensatory damages, Meta was ordered to pay 70 percent and Google 30 percent. The jury awarded another $3 million in punitive damages, including $2.1 million from Meta and $900,000 from Google.
The verdict, which came after nine days of deliberation, sets the stage for thousands of related lawsuits brought by parents, children, school districts, and attorneys general across the country, offering the first blueprint for how to argue such claims—and for what damages might be sought.
Snap and TikTok were also defendants in the original lawsuit, but both settled before the trial began on Feb. 9.
Responding to the verdict, a Meta spokesperson said, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” Google did not have an immediate comment.
Over five weeks, attorneys sparred over competing narratives about the nature and impact of social media on young people’s brains, what company leaders knew and when, and what may have caused a young woman’s years-long psychological turmoil.
The 12 jurors sat mostly stone-faced through testimony from therapists and adolescent addiction experts, executives, engineers, and whistleblowers. They watched lawyers and experts pick apart Kaley’s lengthy medical records and sensitive family history, debating whether her mental health struggles were likely caused or worsened by a social media addiction or by a genetic disposition to mental illness and a chaotic family life marked by neglect and abuse.
The plaintiff testified that she began using YouTube at age 6, Instagram at age 9, and soon developed anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and other disorders. But she was hooked, at times spending 16 hours a day and returning even after incessant bullying, she said.
Nine out of 10 U.S. teens use YouTube; 73 percent say they use it daily, according to 2024 Pew Research Center data. Worldwide, YouTube is the most-watched app, followed closely by Instagram, with both estimated to have between 2 billion and 3 billion users.
The high-stakes trial unfolded during a critical moment, when governments around the world are ramping up online safety laws or imposing blanket social media bans for younger users, and parents are calling for regulatory reform.
Grieving parents who lost children to suicide or fatal “viral challenges” they say were caused by defendants’ app features were a constant presence throughout the trial. Sometimes, they arrived before dawn or camped out all night to get a seat in the courtroom.
The case narrowly focused on design and operation—features like “infinite scroll,” beauty filters, and the companies’ proprietary algorithms—rather than third-party content hosted on the platforms, which is broadly protected by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Pointing to internal documents unsealed during the trial, Meta whistleblowers testified that the company was well aware of the harms to young users but chose to ignore them.
Likening defendants to lions stalking wounded gazelles on the Serengeti, plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier argued that the tech giants preyed upon vulnerable teens in pursuit of money and power.
“They never go after the strongest, never go after the boldest,” Lanier told the jury. “They find the one that’s weaker, that’s more vulnerable, and that’s the one they get.”
Company executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, denied designing addictive apps or targeting minors, and questioned whether social media addiction exists.
“To me, the NorthStar is making sure we’re delivering value and people are having a positive experience, and if that happens, I think people will naturally spend more time on the platform,” Zuckerberg told the jury.
Defendants’ attorneys argued that their platforms were a creative outlet for an already troubled child who came of age during the heightened stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. They said the companies had taken an overcautious approach, introducing protective features even when evidence of risks was inconclusive.
Kaley’s troubles, they argued, started long before she began using social media.
“Their case depends on asking you to find that if you focus only on Instagram, somehow her life would be meaningfully different,” Paul Schmidt, an attorney for Meta, told the jury in his closing argument. “The evidence did not show that. It showed just the opposite.”
Google attorney Luis Li argued that YouTube is not really social media but rather a streaming app akin to Netflix, which people mostly watch on their televisions.
