Meta and YouTube Sued Over Addictive Features Linked to Mental Health Issues

A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and Google liable for deliberately designing addictive features on their platforms that harmed the mental health of a young user. The verdict, delivered on March 25, 2026, marks the first time a lawsuit of this kind regarding social media addiction has gone to trial.

The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court proceedings as KGM and referred to as Kaley, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. She stated that these platforms had deleterious effects on her wellbeing, leading to depression and self-harm by the age of 10.

The lawsuit alleged that specific design features, such as auto-scrolling, were used to hook users and create addiction, which subsequently led to anxiety, depression, and body image issues.

Damages and Jury Findings

The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $6 million in damages. This sum is divided into $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

The decision to award punitive damages was based on the jury’s determination that Meta and Google acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in the operation of their platforms.

Regarding the payment of the award, the jury ruled that Meta will pay 70% of the damages, while YouTube will pay the remaining portion.

The verdict followed a six-week trial in Los Angeles superior court and nearly nine days of jury deliberations. During the proceedings, the court heard testimony from whistleblowers, expert witnesses on addiction, and top executives from both companies.

Company Responses and Legal Arguments

Both Meta and Google have expressed disagreement with the verdict and stated their intention to appeal the decision.

Meta argued that the mental health of teenagers is a complex issue that cannot be attributed to a single application. The company stated it remains confident in its record of protecting teenagers online and will defend itself vigorously, noting that every case is different.

A spokesperson for Google challenged the classification of its service, asserting that the case misunderstands YouTube and describing it as a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.

Industry Implications

The ruling is viewed by campaigners and legal observers as an unprecedented win that could influence hundreds of similar cases currently moving through the United States court system.

The jury found the tech companies to be negligent and determined they failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the potential dangers associated with their products.

Ellen Roome, who is pursuing a separate lawsuit against TikTok following the death of her son, described the verdict as an enough was enough moment, stating that the case proved these platforms are not safe and must be fixed by the companies.