Los Angeles Jury Finds Meta and Google Liable in Landmark Addiction Case

On Wednesday (03/25/2026), Judge Carolyn Kuhl delivered a historic verdict in Los Angeles, where a jury found Meta and Google responsible for intentionally designing addictive social media platforms that harmed the mental health of a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley.

The jury’s decision assigned 70% of the liability to Meta, while YouTube (owned by Google) was found responsible for the remaining 30%.

Trial Evidence and Internal Contradictions

The five-week trial highlighted a significant gap between the companies’ public safety claims and their internal communications:

Usage by Minors: Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony regarding the company’s policy of banning users under 13, the prosecution presented a 2018 internal presentation discussing the “successful retention” of pre-teens on the platform.

The “Addiction Narrative”: A 2019 external research report, commissioned by Instagram, found that teenage users felt “addicted” and held a negative narrative about their usage of the app.

Engagement Mandates: Internal emails from 2015 and 2017 revealed that Zuckerberg set specific goals for executives to increase time spent on the platforms and to “reverse the trend” of declining teen usage.

Defense Arguments from Big Tech

Meta’s legal team argued that Instagram usage was not a significant contributor to the plaintiff’s mental health struggles. During his testimony, Zuckerberg defended the company’s record, stating:

The research mentioned also highlighted positive aspects of platform usage.

The company has evolved to address “problematic use” and no longer operates solely on engagement metrics.

Meta invested in regulated products for children, such as Messenger Kids.

Kaley’s case is a major milestone that is expected to influence hundreds of similar lawsuits currently moving through U.S. courts. Prior to this verdict, other major players like Snap and TikTok reached confidential settlements with the plaintiff to avoid a public trial.

While advocacy groups and bereaved parents view the decision as a critical step toward forcing algorithmic changes, Meta has stated it respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating its legal options.