First Social Media Product-Liability Jury Verdict: $6 Million Against Meta and YouTube for Addicting a Minor

The plaintiff, identified only by her initials K.G.M., began using social media at age six. By her preteen and teenage years she had developed depression and suicidal ideation that she and her attorneys attributed directly to the addictive features built into Meta and YouTube's platforms. Snap and TikTok, originally named as defendants, settled before trial. Meta and Google proceeded to a jury.

The case was tried as a bellwether in Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5255, a California state consolidation that by early 2026 encompassed approximately 1,600 plaintiffs with similar claims. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl presided in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The coordinated proceeding was designed to test core liability questions that could shape resolution of the broader docket.

Plaintiff's trial team argued that both platforms were engineered with features, including infinite scroll, algorithmic content recommendations, and autoplay, designed to maximize time on screen regardless of the harm to young users. The jury heard that the companies were aware of the mental health risks to minors and failed to adequately warn users or their parents. Meta's founder Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri both testified during the proceedings.

On March 25, 2026, the jury found Meta and Google each negligent in the design and operation of their platforms, concluding that negligence substantially caused K.G.M.'s injuries. The panel also found both companies had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, clearing the threshold for punitive damages. The total award was $6 million: $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Liability was apportioned 70 percent to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube.

Wagstaff and Cartmell LLP, with partner Adam S. Davis named among the plaintiff's counsel of record, was recognized by Law360 as one of five lead trial firms on the plaintiff's side following the verdict. The Kansas City-based firm had invested years of work building the social media addiction litigation alongside co-counsel from the Lanier Law Firm, Kiesel Law, Panish Shea Ravipudi, and Beasley Allen. Google announced plans to appeal the decision. No reduction of the verdict had been ordered as of the time of this writing.