Social media giants found liable for social media addiction in landmark court case

Social media giants found liable for social media addiction in landmark court case

In a groundbreaking legal decision, a Los Angeles jury has held Google and Meta accountable for contributing to a woman’s social media addiction. The verdict, which awards $3 million in damages, marks a pivotal moment for future cases targeting tech firms over their influence on user behavior.

Verdict and Damages

California jurors determined that Instagram—owned by Meta—and YouTube—operated by Google—were responsible for the harm suffered by an unnamed plaintiff. The ruling emphasizes the platforms’ role in fostering addictive engagement, with the jury concluding their negligence played a significant part in her condition.

Plaintiff’s Case

The trial centered on a 20-year-old Californian, known in court as KGM, who alleges social media use from childhood led to severe mental health challenges. Her legal team argued that the platforms were designed to manipulate user behavior, describing the features as “Trojan horses” that masquerade as harmless while hijacking attention.

“How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction,” said her lawyer, Mark Lanier, during closing arguments.

Corporate Testimony

Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified that his platforms were created to improve lives, not cause harm. “It’s very important to me that what we do […] is a positive force in their lives,” he asserted, despite the jury’s findings. Meanwhile, Instagram’s Adam Mosseri challenged the concept of addiction, stating there’s no scientific consensus linking social media to clinical dependency.

“That sounds like problematic use,” Mosseri said when questioned about the plaintiff’s 16-hour daily Instagram session.

Defense Arguments

YouTube’s legal team argued the platform does not qualify as social media and presented evidence the plaintiff’s interest waned over time. “Ask whether anybody suffering from addiction could just say, ‘Yeah, I kinda lost interest,’ ” remarked attorney Luis Li, questioning the validity of the claims.

Meta also highlighted the plaintiff’s troubled childhood, noting none of her therapists attributed her struggles to social media. The company plans to appeal the decision, as does Google, both expressing disagreement with the jury’s findings.

Broader Implications

This case is the first of many expected to follow, with over 1,600 plaintiffs—including 350 families and 250 school districts—alleging addictive product designs harmed young users. Matthew Bergman, representing the Social Media Victims Law Center, called the trial itself a victory, stating it proves tech companies can be held responsible in court.

“Win or lose, victims in the U.S. have won because now we know social media firms can be judged by a fair jury,” Bergman said before the verdict.

With the jury finding malice in the companies’ conduct, further damages—punitive in nature—may be added, signaling a potential expansion of liability in similar lawsuits. The trial, lasting nearly a month, underscores the growing scrutiny of how digital platforms shape user habits and mental well-being.