A Los Angeles court concluded that Meta and YouTube were negligent and did not adequately inform users about the risks of addiction. It is described as a landmark judgment. But what happens next?
Mar 26, 2026, 10:43March 26, 2026, 10:47 am
A Los Angeles court has held Meta and Google liable for the psychological consequences of social media addiction for the first time.
The jury awarded the 20-year-old plaintiff $3 million in restitution, 70 percent of which was to be paid by Meta.
In a second step, they ordered an additional fine of another three million, which the companies should bear in the same proportion. Meta and Google rejected the allegations in the process.
The lawsuit was directed against YouTube and Instagram, which belong to the Meta Group. The companies behind the competitors Snapchat and TikTok, who were also originally sued, escaped the process through a settlement.
The outcome of the proceedings could have a groundbreaking effect for further lawsuits of a similar nature.
What was the lawsuit about?
A 20-year-old woman, known only as KGM, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles who accused various social media companies of causing her mental health problems through implementations such as “Infinite Scroll” or algorithmic recommendations.
Until now, companies like Meta and YouTube have always relied on the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects them from liability for contributions that users post on their platforms.
During the trial itself, documents were presented that were supposed to prove that those responsible at Meta and YouTube knew about the negative effects of their products on children. Features like “Infinite Scroll” are designed to attract young users and make them addictive – just as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos.
The trial was reminiscent of the court cases against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. At that time too, accusations were made that tobacco companies were producing addictive products and covering it up. These processes led to a radical restructuring of the industry. Whether this will also be the case with social media companies remains to be seen.
TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat, were also in the dock, but reached an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff before the trial began.
Mark Zuckerberg at the trial in Los Angeles. Image: keystone
What’s next?
The verdict is considered historic, especially because it opens doors for further lawsuits. There was a similar case in the state of New Mexico a few days ago. A jury there ruled that Meta violated state law because the company did not protect users from child molesters.
For the two companies Meta and YouTube, or their parent company Google, the penalty is only a drop in the ocean. But for lawyers, parents and consumer protection associations it is a groundbreaking ruling. The tenor is that it is an important step towards the regulation of social media companies.
Joseph VanZandt, one of KGM’s lawyers says to the New York Times:
“This is the first time in history that a jury has heard testimony from executives and viewed internal documents that we believe demonstrate that these companies have put profits ahead of the welfare of children.”
Joseph VanZandt
KGM is not the only one to have filed such a lawsuit against social media companies. There are eight other trials underway in Los Angeles alone, and a number of federal proceedings are also planned.
The impact of the Los Angeles verdict also depends on the outcome of these trials. According to experts, it is a first victory, but it is still unclear whether the verdict is a turning point for the social media companies.
KGM’s lawyers after the verdict. Image: keystone
Media law expert Clay Calvert tells the New York Times: “If there are a series of rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, this will force the defendants to rethink how they design social media platforms and how they provide content to minors.”
And June Grasso, the legal expert for the broadcaster Bloomberg, also warned against premature celebration: “The cases are being compared to those of the tobacco industry. But it took a while for a pattern to emerge. I think you have to go through several trials before you see which way the jury decides.”
What do Meta and Co. say?
Meta and Google rejected the allegations in the process. Google’s lawyers, for example, argued that YouTube is not a social media platform at all. And Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg said during the trial that measures had already been taken to protect users. For example, the use of the apps is only permitted from the age of 13.
Meta spokeswoman Ashly Nikkole Davis said after the ruling: “Teen mental health is incredibly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously because every case is different.”
After the verdict, Meta said that “legal options” were now being examined. Google also disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal.
Social media companies under pressure
Social media companies have come under increasing pressure worldwide, not only since the verdict. In December, for example, Australia banned the use of social media for young people under 16. Similar regulations are also being discussed in Malaysia, Spain and Denmark, for example. With the ruling, the pressure on Google, Meta and Co. is likely to continue to increase worldwide.