Tech Giants Found Liable in Social Media Addiction Case
Meta, Google were found liable by a Los Angeles jury in an addiction-design case, with $6 million awarded; both firms plan appeals.
Jason Kwon ·
A jury in Los Angeles has found Meta Platforms and Alphabet’s Google liable in a lawsuit alleging their social media products were deliberately built to be addictive and that this harmed a young woman’s mental health.
The plaintiff was identified as Kaley, described in the case as a 20-year-old woman. The verdict assigns monetary damages and includes findings about the companies’ conduct in how the platforms were run.
Verdict details and damages split
Jurors awarded a total of $6 million in damages. The award was divided into $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.
The jury also determined that Meta and Google acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud” in operating their platforms. Under the allocation set out in the verdict, Meta is responsible for 70% of the damages and Google for 30%.
Company responses and next steps
Both companies said they disagree with the outcome. Meta and Google also stated they plan to appeal, meaning the legal process is not finished and the final liability and damages could change.
Meta owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, while Google owns YouTube. The case centers on product design and operation rather than a single piece of content, based on the jury’s finding that the platforms were intentionally engineered to encourage compulsive use.
Broader legal context in the US
The Los Angeles decision comes one day after a separate jury in New Mexico found Meta liable in a case involving allegations that it endangered children and exposed them to explicit material. The two verdicts, delivered on consecutive days, add to a growing set of courtroom tests over social media harms.
The latest ruling is expected to shape hundreds of similar lawsuits moving through US courts. Even without creating binding precedent on its own, a plaintiff win with punitive damages can affect litigation strategy, settlement calculations, and how companies assess legal risk.
Policy pressure and international spillovers
Campaigners and parents welcomed the Los Angeles verdict, arguing it underscores the need for stronger safeguards for children online. The case focuses on a 20-year-old plaintiff, but the public debate referenced in the aftermath extends to youth protections more broadly.
The outcome may also intensify regulatory discussions outside the United States. The source material cites Australia as having implemented restrictions and says the UK is piloting a ban for users under 16, pointing to a policy environment where court decisions can accelerate legislative momentum.