March 25, 2026

2 min read

Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Jury finds Meta and YouTube negligent in landmark social media addiction case

A Los Angeles trial jury found that Meta and YouTube are offering products that are addictive and harmful to young users’ mental health

By Claire Cameron edited by Jeanna Bryner

Photo by Anna Barclay/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Scientific American and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. We leverage third party services to both verify and deliver email. By providing your email address, you also consent to having the email address shared with third parties for those purposes.

Meta and YouTube are liable for operating apps that are addictive and damaging to young people’s mental health, a jury found in the first-ever trial of its kind to weigh social media’s harms.

The legal arguments presented by the plaintiffs echoed some of those brought against big tobacco in the 1990s, which ultimately led to restrictions against tobacco companies targeting ads or products toward young people, among other remedies to restrict their influence.

The jury ordered the companies to pay $3 million to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court as Kaley G.M. Meta was ordered to pay 70 percent of the damages, and YouTube was ordered to pay 30 percent. During the trial, Kaley G.M. testified that using social media as a child and as a teenager gave her anxiety and made her feel insecure about her looks. Her lawyers alleged that the features and design of social media apps are intentionally addictive, while “like” buttons feed teens’ need for social validation.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The case is one of several that are being brought against the social media companies Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap on behalf of 1,600 plaintiffs, including hundreds of families and 250 school districts. It is a “bellwether trial,” meaning its outcome could affect how other lawsuits against social media companies play out.

Before the trial began, TikTok and Snap reached an undisclosed settlement with the plaintiffs involved in the case. Over the course of the seven-week trial, lawyers for Meta and YouTube, which is owned by Google, argued that their platforms are safe for the majority of young users.

“For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features,” said the plaintiff's lawyers in a statement released to the media. “Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived.”

"We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” said Google spokesperson José Castañeda in a statement.

Meta provided a separate statement to the media in which it said, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Scientific American.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American