Navigating the first-instance Judgments in Social Media Addiction Litigation

Two recent state court verdicts in the United States have marked a significant moment in litigation concerning allegations that social media platforms expose children and adolescents to harmful and addictive design features.

While the decisions are noteworthy, both are expected to be appealed and should not be considered definitive. They represent an early stage of a complex and developing legal landscape. 

The Los Angeles verdict: KGM v Meta 

On 25 March 2026, a jury in the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a landmark verdict in KGM v Meta.¹ After a month long trial and over a week of jury deliberations, Meta (for Instagram) and Google (for YouTube) were found liable for designing platforms whose addictive features substantially contributed to harm suffered by the plaintiff. The jury allocated responsibility at 70% to Meta and 30% to Google, awarding $6 million in total damages, including $3 million in punitive damages. 

The plaintiff, who had used YouTube from age six and Instagram from age nine, alleged that design features - such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations and autoplay - were engineered to maximise user compulsion, contributing to anxiety, body dysmorphia, and depression. Evidence included testimony from senior Meta executives such as CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram Head Adam Mosseri.²

Meta and Google have expressed their disagreement with the verdict and intend to appeal.  Meta has said: "Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.” Google has responded that: "This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site."

The verdict forms part of broader civil litigation, including federal Multi District Litigation No. 3047 (MDL), involving more than 2,200 plaintiffs alleging similar harms arising from addictive design features.³ 

The New Mexico Ruling: State enforcement against Meta 

A day before the Los Angeles verdict, a separate New Mexico state court jury held Meta liable for $375 million in civil penalties for willfully violating the state’s unfair practice act.⁴ The New Mexico Attorney General argued that Meta misled users about the safety of platforms such as Instagram and Facebook and failed to safeguard children from risks, including child predators. 

Meta has confirmed that it will appeal this ruling. 

The New Mexico lawsuit differs from personal injury based litigation because it wass brought by New Mexico’s state government, through its attorney general, seeking to address perceived public harms. A second phase of the New Mexico proceeding - conducted as a bench trial without a jury - will address whether Meta created a public nuisance and will seek injunctive relief requiring Meta to pay additional damages and implement changes to its platform such as age verification and additional procedures to protect children from online predators.  

Implications: Significant but not settled 

The verdicts contribute to emerging arguments that social media companies may have knowingly designed addictive features without implementing adequate safeguards. They illustrate the types of evidence and arguments courts may be willing to consider as social media litigation matures, and they may influence future claims, including those in other countries. 

The jury verdicts are not the final word, however. They remain first‑instance decisions and are subject to appeal. They do not conclusively establish legal standards regarding platform design, duties of care, causation, or public‑nuisance liability.

A developing landscape of emerging issues

The cases signal that courts may eventually be required to address: 

• whether the design features such as “compulsion loops,” algorithmic recommendations, and infinite scroll demonstrates intentional conduct; 
• whether social media platforms owe a duty of care to child and adolescent users; 
• the implications for liability insurers, particularly where intentional design choices or government‑driven nuisance claims are alleged; and 
• the potential extension of these arguments to other digital ecosystems, including gaming, AI chatbots, and immersive technologies. 

The court order in KGM v Meta requiring senior executives, including Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, to give testimony may also affect future litigation strategy and create a new source of risk for claims against directors and officers. 

Conclusion: The End of the Beginning?

The verdicts in California and New Mexico provide important markers in the evolving scrutiny of social media design and adolescent harm. Yet they are far from final resolutions, particularly given Meta’s indication that it intends to appeal the $6 million Los Angeles verdict, and that the Federal MDL is yet to get underway and represents a larger class of plaintiffs.  Nevertheless, these two verdicts indicate an early defining moment in a much longer trajectory. 

1: Meta and YouTube designed addictive products that harmed young people, jury finds | Meta | The Guardian
2: Evidence in the KGM v Meta trial included testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram Head Adam Mosseri. Meta and YouTube Ordered to Pay $6 Million in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
3: In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3047 (Northern District of California). 
4: New Mexico state‑court verdict ordering Meta to pay $375 million for wilful violations of the state’s unfair practice act. Meta pay $375 million for violating New Mexico law in child exploitation case