It is alleged that Meta's Instagram and Facebook and Google's YouTube, "rewired how our kids think, feel, and behave"
Share
Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google
A jury in the US has found Meta and Google liable for social media addiction in a landmark case.
A jury at the Los Angeles County Superior Court has delivered its verdict that the tech giants were negligent after a 20-year-old woman said her early use of social media made her addicted and her depression worse.
Snapchat and TikTok were also defendants in the trial – but both settled with the plaintiff before it began.
It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Meta's Instagram and Facebook, Google's YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat "rewired how our kids think, feel, and behave".
'This is a huge moral victory.'
LBC's @willguyatt covers the 'damning' evidence that led to Meta and YouTube being held liable for 'social media addiction'. pic.twitter.com/y7cSIgvcPh— LBC (@LBC) March 25, 2026
The decision came after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days and more than a month since jurors heard opening statements in the trial.
The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM in documents, or Kaley as her lawyers have called her during the trial, says her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated her mental health struggles. She began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at nine, and told the jury she was on social media "all day long" as a child.
Meta and Google-owned YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap each settled before the trial began.
Jurors listened to about a month of lawyers' arguments and evidence, and they heard from Kaley herself, as well as Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri.
YouTube's chief executive, Neal Mohan, was not called to give evidence.
Lawyers representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the respective defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley's harm.
They pointed to specific features they said were designed to "hook" young users, like the "infinite" nature of feeds that allowed for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and even notifications.
Speaking to LBC, technology expert Chris Stokel-Walker, said there were two reasons why the ruling is damning to the industry.
He told Tonight With Andrew Marr: "Number one is this was a bellwether trial so this was effectively lawyers flying the flag and a kite up effectively to see whether or not a jury would agree with them that there is a case to answer here.
"Not only have they said that there is a case to answer, they have almost unanimously. Ten out of 12 jurors said that they believe social media has caused the harm here to this individual.
'I suspect other lawsuits are being lined up all over the world as we speak.'
@TomSwarbrick1 reacts to Meta and YouTube being found liable for 'social media addiction' in a landmark case. pic.twitter.com/EELjHcMbHR— LBC (@LBC) March 25, 2026
"But more importantly than that, it's not just a bellwether trial in terms of hypotheticals, it is actually a real risk here because we know there are other cases coming around the corner."
He added: "Negligence was also a substantial factor and those are the exact words that were used in the case for the harm caused to Kaley here.
"And again, that was similarly the same for Google. So effectively because that platform could cause harm, Meta and Google were both found negligent for not warning users about the potential harm that could have been found.
"So there was a kind of several step process here, finding that actually the operation, design of this was negligent because effectively it could cause addiction.
"That addiction was therefore a substantial factor due to the negligent design of these apps and then also not actually telling people that it was addictive.
Jurors in the case were told not to take into account the content of the posts and videos that Kaley saw on the platforms, because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separately from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life.
Meta also said "not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause" of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments.
But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley's struggles, only that it was a "substantial factor" in causing her harm.
YouTube focused less on Kaley's medical records and mental health history and more on her use of YouTube and the nature of the platform.
They argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform akin to television, and pointed to her declining YouTube use as she got older.
According to their data, she spent about one minute a day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception.
YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform's section of short-form, vertical videos that have the "infinite scroll" feature the plaintiffs argued was addictive.
Lawyers representing both platforms also consistently pointed to the safety features and guardrails they each have available for people to monitor and customise their use.
The case, along with several others, has been randomly selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could affect the way thousands of similar lawsuits filed against social media companies play out.
Laura Marquez-Garrett, a lawyer with the Social Media Victims Law Centre and the counsel of record for Kaley, said this trial was "a vehicle, not an outcome" during deliberations.
"This case is historic no matter what happens because it was the first," Ms Marquez-Garrett said, emphasising the gravity of getting Meta and Google's internal documents into the public record.
She said social media companies are "not taking the cancerous talcum powder off the shelves", likely to be a reference to a past case that Mr Lanier and his firm worked on, securing a multi-billion-dollar verdict.
"And they're not going to because they're making too much money killing kids."
The Social Media Victims Law Centre and the parents who trace their children's deaths or harms back to social media will continue to keep fighting, Ms Marquez-Garrett said, wearing several rubber wristbands in honour of victims, that have not come off since the trial began.
The trial was one of several that social media companies face this year and beyond.
They are the culmination of years of scrutiny of the platforms over child safety, and whether the companies make them addictive and serve up content that leads to depression, eating disorders or suicide.
Some experts see the reckoning as reminiscent of cases against tobacco and opioid markets, and the plaintiffs hope that social media platforms will see outcomes similar to those of cigarette makers and drug companies, pharmacies and distributors.
Speaking in the House of Lords after tonight's decision, Lord Nash has warned that “Californian techies” have gone “way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts”, as he defended his proposal to ban under-16s from social media platforms that are deemed harmful.
Speaking in the Lords, the Conservative former minister said: “I have been the director of tech companies in California.“The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth and job-creating people in the world.
“But in relation to that cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, I think they’ve gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts, and we need to act now in a way that is truly effective.”
Lord Nash added more social media companies will face court action after Meta and Google were found to have designed addictive products.
He told the House of Lords: “Only just minutes ago, in a court in Los Angeles, they found that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive social media, after a 20-year-old woman said her early use of social media made her addicted and depression worse.
“And this comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and fined them 375 million dollars.
“And these cases will likely influence hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through the US courts.”
He said he has spoken with various charitable organisations and there was “broad agreement that an age-based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full-throated enforcement of an increased potency of the Online Safety Act”
