A California jury has found Meta and Google liable in a landmark trial over the harm that addictive social media design can cause to children, a verdict expected to influence thousands of similar claims pending across the United States. The jury in Los Angeles Superior Court delivered its decision on March 25, 2026, after a seven-week trial and more than eight days of deliberations.
The verdict and damages
The jury concluded that Meta’s platforms, including Instagram, and Google’s YouTube were harmful to children and teenagers, and that the companies failed to adequately warn users of the risks. It awarded the plaintiff a total of $6 million — $3 million in compensatory damages and a further $3 million in punitive damages. Meta was assigned 70 percent of the liability, roughly $4.2 million, and Google the remaining 30 percent. The plaintiff had said that compulsive use of the platforms beginning in early childhood contributed to anxiety and depression.
Both companies said they disagreed with the outcome and signaled they would appeal. A Google spokesperson argued that the case misunderstands YouTube, describing it as a streaming service rather than a social network. Snap and TikTok had settled related claims for undisclosed sums before the trial began.
Part of a wider legal wave
The case has been compared to the litigation that reshaped the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Thousands of individuals, school districts, and state attorneys general have filed comparable claims against social media companies, seeking both financial damages and changes to how the products are designed. The Los Angeles verdict arrived a day after a separate jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation on its platforms and ordered it to pay $375 million.
What the trial examined
Much of the trial focused on internal company communications. Jurors were shown documents in which employees discussed increasing the amount of time users, including teenagers, spent on the platforms, and other messages in which staff acknowledged concerns that the products could be habit-forming. Testimony also addressed how features such as “likes,” infinite scrolling, and push notifications can encourage prolonged use and social comparison among younger users.
The Section 230 question
The companies had hoped that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act would shield them; that provision generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued instead that the case was not about user content at all, but about the design of the platforms themselves and the addictive patterns those design choices can produce. The companies countered that the lawsuits carry significant free-speech implications and could undermine the protections that Section 230 and the First Amendment provide for online expression.
What to watch
Because the companies plan to appeal, the verdict is not the final word, and higher courts may revisit both the liability finding and the design-versus-content argument at its center. Even so, the outcome is significant: it tests whether platform design, rather than user-generated content, can expose technology companies to liability, and a ruling that survives appeal could shape how the thousands of pending cases proceed. The scientific evidence linking social media use and youth mental health remains complex and contested, a point the companies emphasized in arguing that such harms cannot be attributed to any single app.
