Meta and Google Found Guilty in Social Media Addiction Case: Legal Appeals Ahead

TLDR

• A Los Angeles jury determined Meta and Google were negligent in creating addictive platforms that harm minors
• The plaintiff, currently 20 years old, received a total award of $6 million: Meta is responsible for $4.2 million, and Google for $1.8 million
• Both firms intend to appeal the decision, and the case may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court
• The trial centered on platform design elements such as infinite scroll and notifications, rather than user-generated content
• Snap and TikTok reached a settlement with the plaintiff prior to the trial starting, though the details of the settlement remain undisclosed

(SeaPRwire) –   A Los Angeles jury ruled Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that caused harm to a young user, a decision both companies plan to appeal.

Meta and Google have been held liable in a social media addiction lawsuit, as a jury found them negligent in the design and operation of their platforms.

They’ve been ordered to pay $3 million in damages to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claims she was addicted to… pic.twitter.com/UgQGVBKlyO

— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) March 25, 2026

The plaintiff, now 20 and referred to as K.G.M. in court documents, stated she developed an addiction to Instagram and YouTube beginning at age 10. She claimed these platforms led to anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia.

The jury granted a total of $6 million in damages. Meta was found 70% at fault, owing $4.2 million, while Google was assigned 30% responsibility, liable for $1.8 million.

In spite of the verdict, the stock prices of both companies saw minimal changes. Meta’s shares closed 0.3% higher, and Alphabet’s ended 0.2% up on the day the ruling was announced.

The plaintiff’s legal team emphasized the construction of the platforms—features such as infinite scroll, “likes,” and push notifications—instead of the content shared by users. This strategy allowed them to avoid Section 230 protections, which protect internet companies from liability related to user-generated content.

Meta stated it does not agree with the verdict and is assessing its legal options. Google also intends to appeal, according to spokesperson José Castañeda.

The Road to a Possible Supreme Court Case

Legal experts note that the appeals process will bring up significant First Amendment issues. Harvard Law School lecturer Timothy Edgar predicts the companies will argue their design decisions are a protected form of expression.

Columbia Law School professor Eric Talley mentioned that the Section 230 issue alone could lead the case to the Supreme Court. Should courts decide that the plaintiff’s design-centered approach violates Section 230, it might not only dismiss this case but also similar lawsuits in other states.

Case JCCP 5255 is viewed as a test case for the thousands of similar lawsuits filed by parents, school districts, and state governments.

Global Pressure on Social Media Platforms

Regulators outside the United States are already taking action. Australia has banned individuals under 16 from using social media services. Brazil now forbids features like infinite scroll. Other nations have either implemented or are in the process of drafting similar regulations.

Snap and TikTok were also defendants in the original trial but reached a settlement with the plaintiff before the case went to the jury. The terms of the settlement were not made public.

Gil Luria, a tech analyst at D.A. Davidson, described the verdict as a “setback” for Meta and Google. He noted that future cases and appeals might eventually force the companies to implement consumer protections that slow down platform growth.

Meta has forecast capital expenditures of $115 to $135 billion for 2026. Alphabet has projected spending of $175 to $185 billion for the same year.