Plan B Forum

Meta, Google Found Liable In LA Social Media Addiction Trial

By Craig Clough

Law360 (March 25, 2026, 1:36 PM EDT) -- In a landmark bellwether verdict on Wednesday, a California state jury found that Instagram and YouTube were a substantial factor in causing harm to the mental health of a woman who claimed she became addicted to the social media platforms as a child, awarding her a total of $3 million and also finding the companies should pay punitive damages.

The Los Angeles jury's finding on the ninth day of deliberations that the companies should face punitive damages for acting with malice, fraud or oppression could significantly increase the verdict amount. That finding kicks off a second phase of the trial in which the jury will hear more evidence and arguments, set to likely commence also on Wednesday.

The jury was asked to divide the compensatory damages into percentages of liability for the two defendants, and found Instagram 70% responsible and YouTube 30% responsible.

Wednesday's verdict comes just one day after a New Mexico jury found that Meta must pay $375 million over the state attorney general's claims that the social media giant hid the full scope of mental health harm its apps were causing to underage users

While the Los Angeles trial covers the claims of a single plaintiff, now 20 years old and known in court as Kaley G.M. or Kaley, the outcome has widespread implications for the tech industry. The trial is the first out of thousands of similar cases filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is a significant blow to Instagram and YouTube and their respective parent companies — Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC — which face billions in potential liability in the state cases along with parallel cases in California federal court.

Kaley's attorney, Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm, told the jury during closing arguments on March 12 the case was as simple as "ABC," which stands for "addicting the brains of children."

Lanier said he sees his phone as a "tool" to call his wife or text his daughters, but "what the defendants figured out how to do is turn it into a slot machine, using slot machine logic, and make it a casino toy that draws in anyone to be addicted to such things."

The verdict also has serious implications for the companies behind TikTok and Snapchat, as they were originally defendants in Kaley's case but settled just before the trial. They are, however, defendants in thousands of other cases still pending. The verdict is also a significant win for organizations, parents and others seeking to hold social media platforms accountable for allegedly causing widespread harm to America's children.

The California bellwether trial is the first of at least nine trials that are planned out of thousands of cases consolidated in Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl's courtroom, with the hope the parties might reach a settlement in the rest of the cases based on the bellwethers' outcomes.

At the trial, Kaley's attorneys strove to convince the jurors on a macro level that social media addiction is real and that Instagram and YouTube were harmfully addictive. On a micro level, they also worked to convince jurors on a micro level that Kaley herself became addicted to the platforms and that the addiction was a substantial factor in her diagnoses for anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia, among other ailments.

The trial was notably not about the content that appears on the platforms, as Judge Kuhl ruled before the trial that content is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but that the companies could not be shielded from allegations the platforms features such as their algorithms, notifications, autoplay and "infinite" scroll were designed to be addictive.

Jurors had to sort through competing academic research, with some studies finding social media platforms such as Instagram and YouTube are harmfully additive, while other studies did not reach that conclusion.

There was also competing evidence presented from current and former executives of the companies.

Tech titan Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of Meta Platforms, whose Facebook platform revolutionized social media over 20 years ago, appeared for the first time ever before a jury considering claims that his Instagram platform is harmful. Zuckerberg told jurors he does not believe social media addiction is real and that his company is constantly working based on the latest research to make Instagram safe for users.

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri also told jurors that social media addiction isn't real, but, like Zuckerberg, was confronted with internal documents and studies the plaintiff's lead attorney Lanier suggested are evidence Meta did know Instagram was dangerously harmful for children, and that up to 30% of America's children under the age of 13 are on the platform despite Meta saying it works to keep that age group off the platform.

Cristos Goodrow, a vice president at YouTube, told jurors the platform was not designed to be addictive and that his kids often watched five to six hours of videos on the platform a day, which he said was "very good" for them.

Despite Zuckerberg and Mosseri's assurances that their platforms are not addictive, they did acknowledge Meta has internal data and studies that have found many of their users had negative experiences on Instagram and overused it, although the company and the executives used their preferred term "problematic" use.

Although the executives often touted changes they'd made to the platforms to make them safer for kids and cut down on problematic use, Lanier often suggested those changes were too little and, too late, frequently pointed out that many of the alterations didn't help Kaley, who said she started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 10.

In contrast to company executives who said the platforms are not addictive and were never designed to be, the jury also heard from several whistleblowers who were former employees and who claimed the companies knew the platforms were harmful for kids but did little about it.

Much of the trial also focused on the details of Kaley's childhood, as the defendants — Instagram in particular — argued that it cannot be proved Kaley's mental struggles were tied to the use of social media, but that it is likely her abusive mother, distant father, troubled sister, bullying she suffered from her peers and even an "embarrassing sexual act" that led to a school suspension are responsible

The evidence also showed that mental health professionals who treated Kaley as a child did not contemporaneously diagnose her with a social media addiction or identify social media as a major problem in her life, focusing her treatment instead on her conflicts with family, school bullies and Kaley's deregulated responses to these stressors.

Lanier argued to the jury that social media addiction was not a well-known phenomenon until recently, so it hadn't been on the radar of mental health professionals who treated Kaley as a minor.

During her testimony, Kaley told jurors she became obsessed with YouTube and then Instagram as a kid, and even created multiple accounts so she could boost her own "likes" and followers on Instagram and make herself look more popular.

The plaintiff is represented by Mariana A. McConnell of Kiesel Law LLP, W. Mark Lanier, Sarah Lanier and Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Adam S. Davis of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, and Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen Law Firm.

Meta is represented by Phyllis A. Jones, Paul W. Schmidt, Andrew Stanner and Michael X. Imbroscio of Covington & Burling LLP.

YouTube is represented by Luis Li, Ariel C. Green Anaba and Lauren Gallo White of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.

The case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255 and lead case number 22STCV21355, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

--Editing by Lakshna Mehta.