According to a March 25, 2026, Los Angeles Times article, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury has found Instagram and YouTube liable in a closely watched civil trial involving claims that the platforms were designed to addict young users.
After seven weeks of court proceedings and more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, jurors ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Kaley G.M., a 20-year-old woman from Chico. The jury awarded $3 million in damages and also found grounds for punitive damages. The verdict was delivered on Wednesday morning.
Kaley testified that she began using YouTube and Instagram in grade school and later experienced harm that she attributed to prolonged use of the platforms. Jurors were tasked with determining whether the companies acted negligently in designing their products and failed to warn users of potential risks.
The case marks a significant development, as the Los Angeles Times reports that no prior lawsuit seeking to hold technology companies responsible for harm to children had reached a jury before this trial, which began in late January. Many similar cases are currently pending in both state and federal courts.
The jury ultimately held both Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, responsible. Liability was split 70 percent to Meta and 30 percent to Google.
According to the article, Snapchat and TikTok were also named in the lawsuit but settled with the plaintiff before trial for undisclosed amounts.
The decision follows another recent ruling referenced in the Los Angeles Times, in which a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for $375 million in a separate case involving allegations that Instagram contributed to harmful conditions for children. Meta has stated it plans to appeal that decision.
The Los Angeles case focused on whether harm resulted from the platforms’ design and operation rather than from user-generated content. This distinction is central to ongoing litigation involving social media companies. The article notes that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has historically shielded platforms from liability related to user content.
Legal experts cited in the article highlighted the importance of this distinction. The lawsuits aim to demonstrate that platform features, including algorithms and engagement-driven design, contributed to user harm.
During the trial, attorneys for Meta and Google argued that Kaley’s experiences were influenced by other factors, including her home environment and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also questioned the validity of social media addiction as a medical condition, noting that there is no formal diagnosis.
Defense attorneys further argued that Kaley had not received treatment for social media addiction and suggested that her usage patterns did not meet the threshold of addiction. They compared platform use to other forms of media consumption.
However, jurors reviewed internal company documents and expert testimony before reaching their decision. According to the Los Angeles Times, jurors requested access to internal Meta materials and examined testimony from a defense expert who stated that social media was not a contributing factor to Kaley’s mental health.
The case also brought Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to the witness stand. As reported, he defended Instagram’s safety measures and discussed the challenges of preventing underage users from accessing the platform.
Additionally, the trial introduced thousands of pages of internal documents into the public record. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that these documents demonstrated the companies’ efforts to increase user engagement among younger audiences.
The verdict is expected to influence a large number of similar cases. According to the Los Angeles Times, Kaley’s lawsuit was selected as a test case from a group of consolidated claims in California state court. Hundreds of additional cases are progressing through the federal court system, with the first federal trial scheduled to begin in June in San Francisco.
The article also notes a recent Delaware court ruling that cleared Meta’s insurers of liability for damages arising from similar lawsuits. That decision could affect how financial liability is distributed in future cases involving alleged harm to children from social media platforms.
Stay informed and ahead of the curve — explore more industry insights and program opportunities at ProgramBusiness.com.