Los Angeles Jury Finds Meta and YouTube Liable for Addictive Design That Harmed a Young Woman
After trial: Judge Kuhl denied Meta's and Google's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial in June 2026, leaving the full $6 million intact. Both companies have appealed, and we found no appellate ruling.
Won by Wagstaff & Cartmell (lead counsel) and The Lanier Law Firm (trial counsel).
A Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent in designing platforms that harmed a young woman identified as K.G.M., who began watching YouTube at age 6 and joined Instagram at 9. On March 25, 2026, it awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, split 70 percent to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube, plus $3 million in punitive damages. It was the first bellwether trial in the coordinated California social media addiction cases.
What happened
On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned the first verdict in the coordinated social media addiction litigation, finding Meta Platforms and Google's YouTube liable for harm to a young woman known in court by the initials K.G.M. The jury awarded $6 million in total: $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Judge Carolyn Kuhl presided over the case, the first bellwether in JCCP 5255.
K.G.M., now 20, started watching YouTube at age 6 and joined Instagram at 9. She testified that she used the platforms all day, every day, and that she could not be without them. She described depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. Instagram's beauty filters, she said, reinforced a negative image of herself, and bullying online deepened her compulsive use.
Her claim was not about any particular post or video. It targeted how the products were built: design features meant to draw young users in and keep them there. W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm tried the case for the plaintiff, with Rachel Lanier and Sarah Lanier beside him at counsel table. Paul Schmidt appeared for Meta and Luis Li for Google.
The defense put the blame elsewhere. Meta argued that K.G.M.'s difficulties came from family problems and learning disabilities rather than from Instagram. Google said her YouTube use peaked around age 8 and that the service was not addictive, telling jurors it had not rewired her brain.
After more than eight days of deliberation, the jury sided with the plaintiff. It found both companies negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and assigned 70 percent of the $3 million compensatory award to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube. It also found that the companies acted with malice or fraud, and set punitive damages at $2.1 million for Meta and $900,000 for Google.
Meta and Google asked the court to set the verdict aside or order a new trial. Judge Kuhl denied both motions in a written ruling in June 2026. She rejected the argument that the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded the companies, finding substantial evidence that K.G.M.'s harms flowed from the design of the platforms rather than from content. Both companies said they would appeal.
Sources
This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.
- 1.Courthouse News Service, 'Meta and Google hit with verdict for social media harms to young woman', March 2026·Archived copy
- 2.The Texas Lawbook, 'Lanier Firm Gets Win in Meta, Google Social Media Addiction Trial', March 25, 2026·Archived copy
- 3.Houston Chronicle, Lisa Falkenberg, 'For renowned Houston lawyer Mark Lanier, beating Meta and Google was a family affair', April 9, 2026·Archived copy
- 4.MediaPost, 'Judge Rejects Meta And Google Bid To Overturn Addiction Verdict', June 2026·Archived copy
- 5.MDL Update, 'JCCP 5255 Social Media Cases: K.G.M. $6M Verdict & Status'·Archived copy
- 6.Law360 Legal Lions of the Week: Wagstaff and Cartmell named as one of five lead trial firms (March 2026)
- 7.NPR: Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial (Mar. 25, 2026)·Archived copy
- 8.NBC Los Angeles: Meta and YouTube negligent in LA social media safety trial (Mar. 25, 2026)·Archived copy
More proven verdicts from The Lanier Law Firm
All The Lanier Law Firm proven verdicts →As chair of the plaintiffs' negotiating committee and Liaison Counsel in the Vioxx multidistrict litigation, Russ Herman directed the negotiations that produced a $4.85 billion settlement with Merck resolving approximately 45,000 to 50,000 personal-injury claims.
A St. Louis jury in July 2018 awarded 22 women and their families $4.69 billion, the largest U.S. verdict of that year, finding that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer; a Missouri appellate court upheld $2.11 billion in 2020.
After a six-week federal trial, a jury found three of the nation's largest retail pharmacy chains created a public nuisance by flooding Lake and Trumbull Counties, Ohio with opioid pills, and a judge ordered $650 million to fund a 15-year abatement plan.
A Dallas federal jury awarded $1.04 billion to six California patients harmed by Johnson and Johnson's metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip implants, with W. Mark Lanier leading an eight-week trial that produced one of the largest product-liability verdicts of 2016.
Related product liability verdicts
A Contra Costa County jury awarded Sherrill Smothers $6.1 million after finding General Motors 80% liable for the defective roof design of his 1984 Corvette, which collapsed during a 1988 rollover and left him a quadriplegic.
A Kern County jury handed Coleen Perry a $5.7 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon unit on March 5, 2015, in the first trial ever to reach a jury over Ethicon's TVT-Abbrevo polypropylene mesh sling.
A hoist operator was carrying a co-worker to the roof of a San Mateo library job in December 2005 when the hoist ran out of control and he fell about 50 feet, losing his dominant right arm above the elbow. A San Francisco jury found the Swedish manufacturer, Alimak Hek AB, liable for a design defect and failure to warn, and valued his damages at $8,328,591. It assigned 57 percent of fault to Alimak, 33 percent to his employer, Sheedy Inc., and 10 percent to him. The Recorder reported he would recover $4,747,296.80 from Alimak, while Jury Verdict Alert put Alimak's share at $5,515,732.
A San Mateo County jury found in March 2016 that the mattress pad in an Evenflo playard was defectively designed because its cover was close to impermeable to air, and that the defect killed a seven-month-old girl who had been put down for a nap at her daycare in 2010. The jury awarded her parents $8,000,000, $4,000,000 each, voting 10 to 2 on design defect and hanging on a companion negligence claim. Evenflo appealed. In November 2018 the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's special verdict findings but reversed the judgment and sent the case back for a new trial limited to apportioning fault between Evenflo and the daycare, because the trial court had refused to instruct the jury on comparative fault. No final judgment figure against Evenflo appears in the public record after that.