The KGM lawsuit is the California case in which a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google’s YouTube liable for negligently designing addictive social media platforms that harmed a young user, awarding her $6 million on March 25, 2026. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old California woman identified by her initials K.G.M. or first name Kaley, tried her claims in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl. It was the first social media addiction claim to reach a jury verdict, and it is expected to influence roughly 2,000 similar cases consolidated in California state courts, plus thousands more in federal multidistrict litigation.
Who K.G.M. Is and What She Claimed
Kaley started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9. She testified that she was on social media “all day long” as a child and became dependent on the apps. She said constant use exacerbated existing mental health struggles, contributing to depression, suicidal thoughts, and body dysmorphia she linked in part to Instagram’s cosmetic filters. She described staying online through cyberbullying and hiding her habits from her therapist because she feared her parents would take away her phone.1CBS News. Instagram Meta YouTube Social Media Trial Plaintiff Testifies KGM
Her lawsuit, originally filed against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap, alleged the companies designed their products to be addictive and exploited the developing brains of children and teenagers. Snap and TikTok settled confidentially in January 2026 before trial. That left Meta and YouTube as the defendants when opening statements began on February 9, 2026.2NPR. Meta YouTube Social Media Trial Verdict
The Legal Theory: Design, Not Content
Kaley’s attorneys framed Instagram and YouTube as “defective products.” The argument was not about what users posted but about how the platforms were built: infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and algorithmic amplification. That framing mattered because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally shields internet companies from liability for user-generated content. By focusing on product design, the plaintiffs’ team, led by Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm and Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, tried to move the case outside that shield.3NPR. Zuckerberg Testimony Social Media Addiction Trial
Meta and YouTube both argued there is no scientific proof that social media causes clinical addiction, and noted that “social media addiction” is not a recognized clinical diagnosis. Meta contended Kaley’s mental health difficulties were driven by other factors, including her home environment. YouTube argued it lacks the social interaction and peer-comparison features that drive addictive use on other platforms.4The New York Times. Social Media Trial Verdict
The Evidence the Jury Heard
The six-week trial included testimony from addiction specialists, mental health clinicians, platform engineers, and executives. Three pieces of evidence stood out.
Dr. Anna Lembke on Adolescent Brains
Dr. Anna Lembke, medical director of Stanford’s addiction medicine program and author of Dopamine Nation, testified for the plaintiff. She described the four hallmarks of addiction as loss of control, cravings, compulsions, and consequences. Adolescents, she said, are “especially vulnerable” because their prefrontal cortices are not yet fully connected to the brain’s reward systems, producing a “lack of communication between the brakes and the accelerator.” She testified that Instagram and YouTube are “inherently addictive” because of features like autoplay, notifications, and endless scroll, and said the platforms “drugified” connection, validation, and novelty.5Rolling Stone. Google Meta Trial Social Media Addiction Opening Statements
Adam Mosseri and the Filter Email
Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified on February 11, 2026. He rejected the addiction framing, comparing social media use to being “hooked on a Netflix show,” and said, “We are trying to be as safe as possible but also censor as little as possible.”6The New York Times. Adam Mosseri Instagram Addiction Trial
Lanier confronted Mosseri with a 2019 internal exchange about whether to ban digital filters that simulate plastic surgery. Mosseri had initially favored an option carrying a “notable risk to well-being” over a total ban. Meta’s VP of product design, Margaret Stewart, wrote to him: “I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that I don’t think it’s the right call given the risks.” Jurors also saw internal Meta correspondence in which one employee reportedly called the platform “a drug” and another wrote, “We’re basically pushers.”7CNBC. Meta Trial Instagram Mosseri Social Media Addiction8The Guardian. Instagram Adam Mosseri Social Media Addiction Trial
Mark Zuckerberg on the Stand
Mark Zuckerberg gave his first-ever jury testimony on February 18, 2026. Under cross-examination, he was shown internal Meta documents that included:
- A 2015 document estimating that over 4 million children under 13 were using Instagram, with a stated goal of increasing time spent on the app by 10-year-olds.
- A 2018 document stating, “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
- A 2020 document showing 11-year-olds were four times as likely to return to Meta apps as older users.3NPR. Zuckerberg Testimony Social Media Addiction Trial
Zuckerberg denied that Meta designs its platforms to be addictive. “I’m focused on building a community that is sustainable,” he testified, adding, “I’m not trying to maximize the amount of time people spend every month.” He acknowledged that children “lie about their age in order to use the services” and that enforcement is “very difficult,” but said, “I always wish we could have gotten there sooner.”9NBC News. Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
The Verdict
After more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, the jury returned its verdict on March 25, 2026. It found Meta and Google negligent in designing and operating their platforms and concluded that the negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing harm to Kaley. Both companies were also found liable for failing to adequately warn users about the platforms’ dangers.10PBS NewsHour. Instagram and YouTube Found Liable in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
The jury identified a “design defect” in Instagram and YouTube, pointing to infinite scroll, push notifications, and harmful algorithmic amplification as features deployed to boost usage despite the companies’ knowledge of the harm to users, especially children. It further found the companies acted with “malice, oppression or fraud,” a finding that supported punitive damages.11EPIC. Jury Finds Meta and Google Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case
The total award was $6 million: $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The jury assigned 70 percent of the liability to Meta and 30 percent to Google, so Meta owes $4.2 million and YouTube owes $1.8 million.4The New York Times. Social Media Trial Verdict
Post-Trial Ruling and Appeal
Meta and Google both moved to overturn the verdict or get a new trial, arguing the liability finding violated Section 230 and the First Amendment.12The Hill. Meta YouTube Appeal Verdict
On June 9, 2026, Judge Kuhl denied both motions in a 26-page ruling. She wrote that Section 230 does not address the companies’ “design choices” and that jurors had been “repeatedly instructed not to consider content.” There was, she found, “substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform.” As to YouTube, she found “substantial evidence that YouTube employed design features that would maximize engagement to the point of creating addiction, regardless of the particular content or ‘expression’ that was communicated to Plaintiff.”13CNBC. Google and Meta Denied New Trial in Youth Social Media Addiction Case14MediaPost. Judge Rejects Meta and Google Bid to Overturn Addiction Verdict
Both companies have said they will appeal. A Meta spokesperson said the legal theory “improperly circumvents Section 230 and the First Amendment.” The $6 million award is therefore not yet final.13CNBC. Google and Meta Denied New Trial in Youth Social Media Addiction Case
Why the Case Matters for Other Lawsuits
K.G.M. was designated a bellwether, meaning its result was intended to test the plaintiffs’ legal theories and guide the resolution of roughly 2,000 other cases consolidated in California state courts. It was the first of three bellwether trials scheduled in Los Angeles.15Amnesty International. Landmark YouTube and Meta Verdict Must Lead to More Social Media Accountability
A parallel federal proceeding, In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047), is pending before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. A federal jury trial is set to begin February 8, 2027.16U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation
The distinction Judge Kuhl drew between platform content and platform design is what makes the ruling potentially significant. If it survives appeal, plaintiffs in other cases can point to it as a route around the Section 230 defense that has historically ended similar suits early. The malice finding also cleared a threshold that could encourage more aggressive claims and larger punitive demands in the trials to come.17The Conversation. Meta and Google Just Lost a Landmark Social Media Addiction Case