US jury slams Meta, Google with $6m penalty in social media addiction trial

LOS ANGELES: In a landmark moment that could reshape the rules of the internet, a Los Angeles jury has found Meta and Google liable for contributing to a young woman’s social media addiction and worsening mental health.

The ruling, delivered on March 25, 2026, is the first of its kind in what legal experts call a “bellwether” trial, essentially a test case that could set the tone for thousands more waiting in the wings across the United States.

After nine days of deliberation, the 12-person jury returned a 10–2 verdict, concluding that the tech giants were negligent in how they designed their platforms, including Instagram and YouTube.

The jury awarded $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM. The sum includes $3 million in compensatory damages for therapy and lost earning potential, and another $3 million in punitive damages aimed at penalising what the jury deemed “malice, oppression, or fraud”.

Meta will shoulder 70 per cent of the payout, while Google is responsible for the remaining 30 per cent.

What makes this case stand out is its legal strategy. Rather than focusing on harmful content, the plaintiff’s legal team argued that the platforms themselves functioned as defective products. This approach sidestepped the usual protections offered by Section 230, which typically shields tech firms from liability over user-generated content.

The spotlight instead fell on design features. Infinite scroll, autoplay, and persistent notifications were portrayed as carefully engineered loops designed to keep users, especially minors, hooked.

Internal documents presented in court suggested that executives were aware younger users were particularly vulnerable. The case also pointed to the role of beauty filters in fuelling body image issues and depression, which the plaintiff said began when she started using the apps at age nine.

Both companies pushed back, arguing that mental health challenges are complex and cannot be pinned on a single factor. They also raised questions around parental oversight, suggesting the plaintiff’s struggles may have stemmed from circumstances beyond screen time.

Google further argued that YouTube should be treated as a video streaming service rather than a social media platform, distancing it from the addiction narrative.

While $6 million may barely dent the balance sheets of these tech giants, the implications are far from small change. More than 2,000 similar cases are currently queued up in courts, and this verdict could nudge many towards settlement.

The decision also places a sharper lens on platform design. Features once celebrated for boosting engagement may now face scrutiny as potential liabilities, especially where younger users are concerned.

For Meta, the timing adds to the sting. Just a day earlier, a separate jury in New Mexico ordered the company to pay $375 million in a case linked to child safety on its platforms.

Both Meta and Google have said they will appeal. But for now, the message from the courtroom is clear, the era of unchecked scroll may be nearing its legal limits.