Social media on trial: what California verdict means
On 25 March, a Los Angeles jury returned a verdict that may prove to be one of the most significant developments in technology liability law in a generation, writes Philip Andrews SC (pictured) of Andrews Law.
In KGM v Meta Platforms, Inc et al, jurors found Meta (Instagram) and Google (YouTube) civilly liable for harms suffered by a young woman who had used their platforms since early childhood.
Both companies have indicated they will appeal.
The case was the first trial anywhere to test the legal theory that social-media platforms were designed in ways that foreseeably cause compulsive use among children and teenagers — and that the companies responsible for those design choices bear civil liability for the resulting harm.
Plaintiff and her claim
The plaintiff, identified as KGM (Kaley GM), is a 20-year-old Californian who began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine.
She alleged that the design features of both platforms – including infinite scroll feeds, algorithmic content recommendation, autoplay video, social-reward mechanisms such as ‘likes,’ and push notifications – were engineered to maximise user engagement in ways that exploited the psychology of young users, fostering compulsive use.
She further alleged that this compulsive use contributed to depression, anxiety, body-image difficulties, and self-harm.
KGM's case was part of a coordinated mass tort action involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs. Her trial was the first to proceed to verdict.
Defence position
Meta's trial counsel acknowledged that KGM had experienced mental-health difficulties, but disputed that Instagram was a substantial contributing factor to those difficulties.
Meta's position throughout was that the company had continuously worked to improve platform safety and that internal research was part of that effort.
YouTube's defence took a different tack.
Luis Li, YouTube's trial counsel, challenged the characterisation of the platform's features directly, arguing for instance that the infinite scroll function on YouTube was in practice limited — on average, he submitted, limited to one minute and 14 seconds.
Mr Li put the point bluntly: “[i]nfinite scroll is not infinite … in this case … it’s as little as a minute and 14 seconds. It’s not social-media addiction when it’s not social media and it’s not an addiction.”
YouTube, after the verdict, characterised YouTube as a responsibly built streaming platform rather than a social-media site — a position consistent with the line it had maintained throughout the trial.
The evidence
The trial attracted wide attention, in part because Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was called to give evidence.
Press reports indicate that he faced questioning about a series of internal company documents.
A 2019 internal communication from a senior Meta executive to Zuckerberg and other top executives reportedly raised concerns about the company's age-verification practices.
A 2019 external research report commissioned by Instagram reportedly found that teenage users described their relationship with the platform in terms that suggested compulsive engagement.
Internal communications from 2015 reportedly reflected corporate goals relating to user engagement and the reversal of declining usage among teenagers.
A 2018 internal presentation reportedly referred to the retention of underage users on the platform, notwithstanding Meta's stated policy that such users were not permitted.
Zuckerberg maintained in evidence that the documents were being mischaracterised by plaintiff's counsel.
Verdict and damages
The jury returned a 10-2 verdict, finding both platforms civilly liable.
KGM was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, jointly, and a further $3 million in punitive damages – with the punitive award apportioned 70% against Meta and 30% against Google, reflecting the jury's assessment that Meta bore the greater share of responsibility.
Both companies have said they will appeal.
Why this matters beyond California
Observers have drawn analogies to earlier waves of mass tort litigation against tobacco and pharmaceutical companies – cases in which jury verdicts, and the internal documents surfaced through discovery, ultimately reshaped both regulatory frameworks and corporate behaviour.
The significance of KGM lies not only in the damages awarded but in what the verdict represents: the first time a civil jury has held a social-media platform liable for harm arising from the design choices embedded in its product, rather than from the content that users post on it.
That distinction matters enormously.
Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act has long shielded platforms from liability for third-party content.
Design-defect claims operate on different ground.
Irish and EU dimension
For Irish lawyers and regulators, this verdict arrives at a particularly pointed moment.
The EU's proposed Digital Fairness Act is directed precisely at the kinds of platform design choices at issue in KGM — recommender systems, default settings, engagement loops, and the exploitation of psychological vulnerabilities.
Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union commences on 1 July, a role that places it in the chair as the Digital Fairness Act moves through the adoption process.
That coincidence has not gone unremarked.
In a statement to the Oireachtas European Affairs Committee on 22 April 2026, Dr Johnny Ryan of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties called on Ireland to recuse itself from all digital files during its presidency, citing what he characterised as a fundamental tension between Ireland's role as host to the European headquarters of the world's largest technology companies and its responsibilities as an impartial steward of EU digital regulation.
Whether or not one accepts that characterisation, the underlying tension is real and will not be easily resolved.
The internal documents that surfaced in KGM – the kind of disclosure that civil litigation uniquely compels – have a way of reshaping the regulatory and political landscape around contested industries.
Both Meta and Google maintain that the verdict is wrong and have indicated their intention to appeal.
The litigation is far from concluded.
- Philip Andrews is a solicitor, senior counsel and founder of Andrews Law, a Dublin-based competition and regulatory law practice.