On Wednesday March 25, 2026, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a jury of seven women and five men delivered a verdict that rattled Silicon Valley: Meta and YouTube are liable on all counts for designing addictive platforms that damaged the mental health of a young woman identified as Kaley G.M., now 20 years old.
The jury deliberated for more than eight days following a nearly seven-week trial that began in late January. The final decision was unambiguous: both companies acted with negligence, malice, oppression and fraud in the way they designed and operated their platforms to attract and retain underage users.
Total damages were set at 6 million dollars — 3 million in compensatory damages for emotional harm and economic losses, and another 3 million in punitive damages. Responsibility was split: Meta bears 70% and YouTube 30%. Both companies announced they will appeal.
Who Kaley is and how the case began
Kaley G.M. is 20 years old today. She filed the lawsuit as a minor, and her personal story is the backbone of a case that her lawyers described as the first time in history that a jury heard testimony from social media executives and accessed internal company documents about the effects of their platforms on children.
Kaley began consuming YouTube at age 6 and by 9 was using Instagram intensively, along with Snapchat and TikTok. By the time she was 11, she testified, she was spending up to 16 hours a day online and had panic attacks when her phone was taken away.
The consequences, according to her testimony and the expert witnesses who testified, were concrete and documented: anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia — the last driven by obsessive use of Instagram filters that altered her appearance, making her nose smaller and her eyes larger. Her mother testified that the addiction affected her daughter's long-term memory and ability to function without a phone.
"I stopped connecting with my family because I spent all my time on social media," Kaley said during her testimony. "It really affected my self-esteem."
When Kaley's lawyers pointed out to Instagram chief Adam Mosseri that her longest day on the platform had been 16 hours, Mosseri called it "problematic" but denied it was evidence of clinical addiction. He added that his own children use YouTube for hours every day and that he considers it "good" for them.
The internal documents that changed the trial
The turning point came when Kaley's attorney Mark Lanier presented the jury with internal documents from Meta and YouTube showing that executives at both companies knew about and internally discussed the negative effects of their products on children — and continued anyway.
The documents showed that features like infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations and autoplay video were not design accidents but deliberate decisions aimed at maximizing usage time among younger users.
Meta pursued a different defense: it argued that Kaley's mental health problems stemmed from family abuse and pre-existing disorders, not platform use. YouTube argued it is not technically a social network and that its features are not designed to create addiction. The jury rejected both arguments.
Mark Zuckerberg testified at the trial — the first time in his career he has given testimony in a courtroom on these types of accusations. He reiterated that existing scientific research does not prove social media causes mental health harm. The jury did not accept that position either.
Why this verdict is historic
Kaley's case is not just an individual story. It is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits against social media companies to reach trial in the United States. The outcome does not automatically determine the other cases, but it provides significant guidance.
The legal theory the jury validated — that platforms can be held personally liable for harm resulting from their design — is new and, until this verdict, untested before a jury. The lawyers driving the lawsuits compare it to the legal strategy that led the major tobacco companies to lose massive trials in the twentieth century: proving the company knew its product was harmful and chose not to warn users.
Snap and TikTok, also named in the case, reached confidential settlements with Kaley before trial — following the same pattern the tobacco companies used when they began losing in court.
Federal cases filed by states and school districts are scheduled to go to trial in summer 2026 in the Northern District of California. If results follow a similar direction, companies could face billions of dollars in additional damages.
The New Mexico verdict: 375 million against Meta
Simultaneously with Kaley's case, another jury in New Mexico delivered a similar verdict: Meta was ordered to pay 375 million dollars for prioritizing profit over minor user safety and for the mental health harm caused. It is the largest damages figure linked to this type of lawsuit to date.
The combination of both verdicts in the same week amplifies the message US courts are sending to social media platforms.
What Meta and YouTube are saying
A Meta spokesperson was brief: "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options." The company also issued a broader statement: "Teen mental health is deeply complex and cannot be attributed to a single app."
Google, which owns YouTube, was equally direct: it will appeal.
What comes next for the platforms
If verdicts continue in this direction, companies could be forced to redesign core platform features — infinite scroll, recommendation algorithms, autoplay — that sit at the heart of their business model today.
Legislative pressure is also building. In 2024, the US Surgeon General called for health warning labels on social media, comparable to those on cigarettes. Australia passed a law in 2025 requiring Meta to remove users under 16. And mandatory age verification bills are advancing in several US states.
For Kaley, the verdict was more than a dollar figure. She was in the courtroom when the jury read its decision, alongside parents of other teenagers who say their children suffered similar harm. Her lawyers said the verdict "sends an unequivocal message that no company is above accountability when it comes to our children."
Comments
💬 Log in to comment💬 Join the conversation and log in to comment.