A Los Angeles County jury returned a $6 million verdict against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC in a case brought by a young user identified as Kaley G.M., finding both companies liable for negligently designing addictive social media platforms and failing to warn users of associated dangers [1]. The verdict, reached March 1, 2026, is the first jury finding of platform liability in the wave of social media addiction litigation now pending in courts across the country [1]. The case proceeded to trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on claims sounding in products liability negligence and failure to warn, with the plaintiff alleging that the companies' algorithmic design caused depression and other mental health harm [1].
At trial, jurors assessed liability against both defendants separately. The jury assigned $4.2 million in damages against Meta and $1.8 million against Google, for a combined award of $6 million [1]. The claims centered on the argument that the platforms were designed to maximize engagement through mechanisms that foreseeably endangered young users' mental health, and that the companies failed to disclose those risks [1]. No punitive component was reported in the verdict [1].
Following the verdict, both Meta and Google filed post-trial motions seeking either to overturn the jury's findings or, in the alternative, to obtain a new trial [1]. The motions place the outcome in procedural limbo pending the trial court's rulings. A decision against the defendants on the post-trial motions would set the stage for an appeal to California's Second Appellate District, which would be the first intermediate appellate review of a social media addiction verdict on the merits.
The result carries significant weight for the broader docket of similar claims. Dozens of consolidated and individual actions are pending in both state and federal courts against major social media companies, and plaintiff attorneys in those matters will likely point to this verdict as proof that the theory of liability can survive jury scrutiny [1]. Defendants, in turn, are expected to argue in their post-trial briefing that the verdict conflicts with federal preemption principles and First Amendment protections that courts in parallel proceedings have found persuasive.