A California state court jury in Santa Clara County returned a $3 million compensatory verdict on March 26, 2026, against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC (YouTube) in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., the first social media addiction case to reach a jury verdict in California's consolidated social media addiction litigation [1]. The plaintiff, identified by initials, is a 20-year-old who alleged that algorithmic design features on Instagram and YouTube caused anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation [1]. The case survived pretrial motion practice as part of a broader coordinated proceeding in Santa Clara County Superior Court, with products liability and negligence as the operative theories.
Trial counsel for plaintiff Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm presented the case on defective design and negligence theories, arguing that both platforms were designed in ways that foreseeably addicted minors and caused cognizable mental health harm [1]. The jury returned the $3 million award on the compensatory phase and, in a separate finding, determined that both Meta and YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud [1]. That finding triggers a second phase of proceedings in which the jury will consider punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294.
The punitive phase had not concluded as of the verdict date, and the total damages exposure for both defendants remains open [1]. The compensatory award alone does not reflect the final judgment. Allocation of the $3 million between the two defendants was not reported in available sources.
Both Meta and Google face coordinated litigation across multiple jurisdictions involving similar claims of platform-driven harm to minors. The malice finding here creates a trial record that plaintiffs' counsel in parallel proceedings will seek to use as a litigation template, though courts in other venues are not bound by the Santa Clara jury's conclusions. Post-trial motions and any appeal of the judgment, if one is entered following the punitive phase, are anticipated but had not been filed as of the verdict date [1].