A Los Angeles jury delivered the verdict in Mark Zuckerberg’s social media addiction lawsuit on March 25, 2026, finding Meta and Google’s YouTube liable for negligence and awarding $6 million to a young woman identified as K.G.M. The split assigned $4.2 million to Meta and $1.8 million to Google, with half the total in compensatory damages and half in punitive damages after jurors found the companies acted with “malice, oppression, and fraud.”1Reuters. Meta Asks California Judge Throw Out Landmark Social Media Addiction Verdict2Courthouse News. Meta and Google Hit With $6 Million Verdict for Social Media Harms to Young Woman It was the first time a jury treated social media apps as defective products, and the ruling has since survived Meta’s first attempt to overturn it.
The case, brought in Los Angeles Superior Court, was a bellwether within a much larger fight. More than 2,600 similar suits are pending in federal court, and the K.G.M. outcome is being read as a preview of what juries may do with them.
The Jury’s Findings
After seven weeks of testimony and nine days of deliberation, the jury concluded that the platforms’ design was “defective,” that the companies’ negligence was a “substantial factor in causing harm” to K.G.M., and that they “failed to adequately warn of the dangers.”3NBC Los Angeles. Verdict LA Social Media Addiction Trial
The compensatory award of $3 million was split 70/30 between Meta and YouTube. The jury then added $3 million in punitive damages on the same split. Two of the original defendants, Snapchat and TikTok, had settled with K.G.M. before trial for undisclosed sums.4The Guardian. Snapchat Parent Company Snap Settles Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Before Trial
K.G.M., who was 20 at trial, began using Instagram at 9 and once spent 16 hours on the app in a single day. Her former therapist testified that she had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, and characterized social media as a “contributing factor, not a causation factor.”5ABC7 News. Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial Plaintiff Describes Emotional Toll6The Guardian. Social Media Meta YouTube Trial
What Zuckerberg Said on the Stand
Zuckerberg testified for roughly eight hours across two days in February 2026, the first time he had faced a jury on questions of child safety.7CNN. Meta Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Social Media Addiction Trial Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier led the questioning, and the exchanges turned sharp. Zuckerberg repeatedly told Lanier, “That’s not what I’m saying at all” and “You’re mischaracterizing what I’m saying.”8NPR. Zuckerberg Testimony Social Media Addiction Trial
On underage users, Zuckerberg acknowledged that “some users lie about their age” and that enforcing age restrictions is “very difficult.” Lanier confronted him with internal Meta documents from 2015 estimating that more than four million users under 13 were on Instagram, roughly 30% of all 10- to 12-year-olds in the United States. Zuckerberg maintained that children under 13 are “not allowed on Instagram” and said the company removes those it identifies as underage.9The Guardian. Mark Zuckerberg Meta Trial Testimony8NPR. Zuckerberg Testimony Social Media Addiction Trial
On engagement, Lanier produced a 2015 internal email citing a goal to increase Instagram usage time by 10%. Zuckerberg said the email was being “mischaracterized” and told the jury Meta had once given teams time-based goals but changed course because “I don’t think it’s the best way to run the company.” He denied that maximizing time spent on Instagram remains a company objective.7CNN. Meta Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Social Media Addiction Trial10CNBC. Meta Mark Zuckerberg Social Media Safety Trial
Asked about Instagram’s cosmetic-surgery-style filters, Zuckerberg defended them as a matter of “free expression” and called removing them “paternalistic.” He acknowledged seeing a University of Chicago study suggesting the filters harm teenage girls but told the court he concluded there was insufficient “causal evidence” to act on it.10CNBC. Meta Mark Zuckerberg Social Media Safety Trial
He also confirmed a prior remark about his control over Meta’s board: “If the board wants to fire me, I could elect a new board and reinstate myself.”10CNBC. Meta Mark Zuckerberg Social Media Safety Trial
How the Case Got Around Section 230
For years, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability for user content, has been social media companies’ most reliable defense. K.G.M.’s legal team, led by Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm, worked around it by framing the case around platform architecture rather than content. The theory was that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay video, constant notifications, and beauty filters made the products themselves defective, comparable to a faulty airbag or a charger that catches fire.11NPR. Meta YouTube Social Media Trial Verdict12EPIC. Jury Finds Meta and Google Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case
The jury was instructed not to consider the content K.G.M. encountered on the platforms, only whether the design of the products was negligent. When Meta and YouTube later asked the trial judge to throw out the verdict on Section 230 grounds, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl rejected the argument. The statute “does not address the companies’ design choices,” she wrote, adding that “there was substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform.”13Journal Record. California Court Denies New Trial Google Meta Social Media Addiction
Meta’s Motion to Overturn and the Coming Appeal
Meta filed its motion to overturn the verdict or grant a new trial on May 4, 2026, citing Section 230, the First Amendment, and problems with the causation evidence.1Reuters. Meta Asks California Judge Throw Out Landmark Social Media Addiction Verdict Judge Kuhl denied the motion on June 10, 2026, ruling that the punitive damages were “supported by substantial evidence” that Meta and YouTube “willfully and consciously disregarded the rights and safety of its minor users through the design and operation of their platforms.” She noted that many of the companies’ arguments had already been raised and rejected during the litigation.13Journal Record. California Court Denies New Trial Google Meta Social Media Addiction
A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the ruling and expected it to be “overturned on appeal.”13Journal Record. California Court Denies New Trial Google Meta Social Media Addiction Meta and Google are expected to pursue a formal appeal through California’s appellate courts, where the interpretation of Section 230 in the context of product-design claims will likely be a central issue.1Reuters. Meta Asks California Judge Throw Out Landmark Social Media Addiction Verdict
Why the Verdict Matters Beyond K.G.M.
K.G.M.’s case is one piece of a much larger fight. More than 2,600 lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047), overseen by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs include individual families, school districts, and attorneys general from more than 40 states; defendants include Meta, Google, Snap, and ByteDance.14U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation
Judge Rogers ruled in November 2023 that Section 230 and the First Amendment do not bar plaintiffs’ negligence claims based on platform design, and in October 2024 she allowed most claims by state attorneys general to proceed. School districts were also permitted to pursue negligence and public nuisance claims tied to student mental health services.15Tech Policy Press. Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 3047
Several trials are queued behind K.G.M.’s. A second individual-plaintiff trial in the state-court consolidated action was scheduled to begin July 27, 2026, and the first individual bellwether trial in the federal MDL was set for June 15, 2026, followed by another in August 2026.16Lanier Law Firm. Court Denies Motion to Overturn $6 Million Verdict in Social Media Addiction Case Judge Rogers has set jury selection in the federal MDL for February 2027 in Oakland, with six school-district plaintiffs lined up.14U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation
One school-district case has already resolved. The Breathitt County School District in Kentucky settled its bellwether claims in June 2026 for $27 million, with Meta paying $9 million, TikTok and Snap paying $8 million each, and Alphabet paying just over $2 million. The companies did not admit wrongdoing, and the funds are earmarked for student mental health programs.17WKYT. Breathitt County Schools Receive $27 Million Settlement From Social Media Companies
Whether the $6 million K.G.M. award survives appeal, and whether the design-versus-content distinction holds up at higher courts, will shape the legal exposure Meta and its peers face for years. For now, the verdict stands, the appeal is coming, and thousands of cases are waiting to see what the appellate courts do with it.