LOS ANGELES —A California jury has found Meta and Google’s YouTube liable for negligence in a landmark social media addiction trial, ordering the companies to pay millions in damages to a young woman who said their platforms fueled her depression and anxiety. 

This ruling is being described as a “Big Tobacco moment” for the tech industry, with far-reaching implications for future lawsuits.

On March 25, 2026, jurors in Los Angeles Superior Court concluded that Meta and YouTube failed to warn users of the dangers associated with their platforms and deliberately designed addictive features that harmed children. The plaintiff, identified in court documents as K.G.M., is a 20-year-old woman who testified that her compulsive use of Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube as a minor worsened her depression and suicidal ideation.

The jury awarded damages ranging between $3 million and $6 million, with Meta responsible for the majority share and YouTube covering the rest. TikTok and Snap, also named in the lawsuit, settled before the trial began.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified during the proceedings, defending the company’s practices, while Google argued that parental supervision and external factors contributed to the plaintiff’s struggles. However, jurors sided with the plaintiff’s attorneys, who argued that the platforms intentionally engineered addictive algorithms to maximize engagement.

Legal experts say this is the first of hundreds of similar cases pending across the United States, and the verdict could set a precedent for holding social media companies accountable for youth mental health harms. Advocates for online safety hailed the decision as a breakthrough after years of campaigning for stricter regulation of tech platforms.

The ruling underscores growing scrutiny of Silicon Valley’s role in the youth mental health crisis. Analysts warn that more lawsuits could follow, potentially reshaping how social media platforms operate and forcing companies to implement stronger safeguards for children.

This case marks a turning point in the debate over digital responsibility, signaling that juries may now be willing to hold tech giants financially and legally accountable for the psychological impact of their products.