Meta and YouTube are liable for operating apps that are addictive and damaging to young people’s mental health, a jury found in the first-ever trial of its kind to weigh social media’s harms.
The legal arguments presented by the plaintiffs echoed some of those brought against big tobacco in the 1990s, which ultimately led to restrictions against tobacco companies targeting ads or products toward young people, among other remedies to restrict their influence.
The jury ordered the companies to pay $6 million to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court as Kaley G.M. Meta was ordered to pay 70 percent of the damages, and YouTube was ordered to pay 30 percent.* During the trial, Kaley G.M. testified that using social media as a child and as a teenager gave her anxiety and made her feel insecure about her looks. Her lawyers alleged that the features and design of social media apps are intentionally addictive, while “like” buttons feed teens’ need for social validation.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The case is one of several that are being brought against the social media companies Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap on behalf of 1,600 plaintiffs, including hundreds of families and 250 school districts. It is a “bellwether trial,” meaning its outcome could affect how other lawsuits against social media companies play out.
Before the trial began, TikTok and Snap reached an undisclosed settlement with the plaintiffs involved in the case. Over the course of the seven-week trial, lawyers for Meta and YouTube, which is owned by Google, argued that their platforms are safe for the majority of young users.
“For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features,” said the plaintiff's lawyers in a statement released to the media. “Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—that accountability has arrived.”
"We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” said Google spokesperson José Castañeda in a statement.
Meta provided a separate statement to the media in which it said, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Scientific American.
*Editor’s Note (4/1/26): This sentence was changed after posting to correct the dollar value of the damages awarded to the plaintiff.