YourSolicitor.com
Start your assessmentAssessment
Court case · Case file

K.G.M. v Meta and Google

A Los Angeles jury found Instagram and YouTube negligent in the design of their platforms.

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 12 (Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl). Last checked 11 October 2026.

Status: Verdict delivered 25 March 2026. Both defendants are appealing.

In March 2026 a Los Angeles jury found that Meta (Instagram) and Google (YouTube) were negligent in how they designed their platforms and in failing to warn of the danger, and that this was a substantial factor in harming a young woman who had used them since childhood. This file sets out what happened, in order, and what is still open.

Key facts

Case
P.F. et al. (K.G.M.) v Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., No. 23SMCV03371, part of the California coordinated proceedings JCCP 5255
Court and judge
Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 12, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl
Claimant
A young woman identified in court only as K.G.M.
Defendants at trial
Meta (Instagram) and Google (YouTube). Snap and TikTok settled on confidential terms before trial
Verdict
25 March 2026. Negligent design or operation, and failure to warn
Damages
$3 million compensatory and $3 million punitive, $6 million in total. Compensatory damages split 70% Meta ($2.1 million) and 30% Google ($0.9 million). Punitive damages were assessed against each defendant separately: $2.1 million against Meta and $0.9 million against YouTube
Status
Post-trial motions refused on 9 June 2026. Meta and YouTube have since filed notices of appeal

Timeline

  1. 13 October 2023Judge Kuhl rejects the Section 230 (the US law protecting platforms from liability for other people’s posts) and First Amendment defences to the negligence claims, because those claims are about the design of the products and not about what users post. The product liability claims are dismissed.
  2. 5 November 2025Judge Kuhl refuses summary judgment, so the case can go to a jury.
  3. 20 and 26 January 2026Snap settles on 20 January. TikTok settles late on 26 January, the day before jury selection was due to begin (some reports date it 27 January). Both settlements are confidential.
  4. 9 February 2026Opening statements to the jury against Meta and Google.
  5. 11 February 2026Instagram head Adam Mosseri gives evidence.
  6. 18 February 2026Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg gives evidence.
  7. 25 March 2026The jury returns its verdict against both companies: US$3 million compensatory damages and US$3 million punitive damages, US$6 million in total, with 70% of the responsibility placed on Meta and 30% on YouTube.
  8. 9 June 2026The judge refuses Meta’s and Google’s motions to overturn the verdict or order a new trial, and the $6 million total stands.
  9. July 2026Meta files its notice of appeal on Tuesday 7 July. YouTube files on Monday 13 July (Associated Press reports, 10 and 15 July 2026).

Who brought the case and why

The claimant, known in court documents as K.G.M., said she began using YouTube at around six and Instagram at around nine, and that years of heavy use contributed to anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. The case was filed in 2023.

Her case was chosen as the first test (a “bellwether”) among thousands of similar claims gathered in the California coordinated proceedings, so that a jury’s view of one case could guide the rest. The same issues are also being litigated in a federal multidistrict proceeding in Oakland, California.

What she claimed

The claims that went to the jury were negligent design or operation of the platforms, and negligent failure to warn. Claims in strict product liability did not proceed to the jury.

The features at the centre of the case were infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, notifications and appearance filters. Her lawyers argued these were built to maximise the time young users spend on the apps, and that the companies knew the risk to children and did not say so.

How the companies defended themselves

Meta argued that K.G.M.’s difficulties came from her home life and problems that pre-dated her use of Instagram, and that Instagram was not a substantial factor in her harm. It relied on her own texts and posts, her therapist’s notes, and videos she filmed of her mother.

YouTube argued that it is not social media in the sense the claim assumed, and that she used it as a way of coping. On YouTube’s own figures, her viewing of Shorts, its short-video feed, averaged about one minute 14 seconds a day.

Both raised Section 230 and the First Amendment. The judge held that the case turned on how the products were designed, not on the content users posted, and told jurors to put the content of posts out of their minds.

What the jury found

The jury had twelve members and at least nine had to agree on each question. The Associated Press reported that two jurors consistently disagreed with the other ten on whether the companies should be held liable.

It found that each of Meta and YouTube was negligent in the design or operation of its platform, that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to K.G.M., that each knew or should have known the design was dangerous to minors, and that each failed to warn of that danger adequately.

It awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and a further $3 million in punitive damages. It divided the compensatory damages 70% to Meta ($2.1 million) and 30% to Google ($0.9 million), and assessed punitive damages against each separately ($2.1 million against Meta and $0.9 million against YouTube). On punitive damages the jury found malice, oppression or fraud, the legal threshold in California for punishing a defendant and not only compensating a claimant.

The evidence the jury heard

The jury heard from medical experts on whether heavy social media use can cause these harms in general and in K.G.M.’s case, from her treating therapist, and from the company witnesses named above.

Mr Mosseri, asked about a day in which a user was on Instagram for 16 hours, said that “sounds like problematic use”, while maintaining that he did not think people could be clinically addicted to the app. The claimant’s lawyers put internal Meta emails to him, including one in which colleagues discussed beauty filters and body dysmorphia.

Mr Zuckerberg was shown internal documents about targets for time spent on the apps, and was questioned about his earlier statement to Congress that staff were not given such targets. More of the documents the companies produced are summarised on the case page. Court papers and testimony are held on our source documents page.

What happens next

Appeals by Meta and YouTube are pending, so the $6 million is not yet final. An appeal is decided on points of law, such as whether Section 230 applies, and not by re-running the trial. Our updates page records developments as they happen.

More trials are scheduled in the same California proceedings, including one set to begin on 28 October 2026 against Meta and Snap (brought by plaintiffs identified as S.J. and K.D.B.), and further trials set for 16 March and 6 August 2027.

The verdict is one jury’s decision in one case. It does not set a legal rule that other courts must follow, and a different jury could decide differently on different evidence. The other cases in this series are New Mexico v Meta and the EU regulator’s findings in European Commission v Meta.

What this means for UK families

A California verdict does not bind a court in England and Wales and does not predict how a UK case would end. UK claims run under different law, with different rules on damages, costs and proof.

There are, however, three reasons the case matters here. First, the evidence: documents the companies produced in US litigation, and what their executives said about them, may be of interest to UK claimants, although whether any of it can be used would be decided by a UK court. Second, the legal route: the most likely UK claim for harm of this kind is a personal injury claim in negligence, where proving the platform caused the harm is the main hurdle, and many similar claims can be managed together under a Group Litigation Order. Our guide to how a claim works explains this in plain terms. Third, the companies: Meta and Google operate in the UK through their Irish and UK entities, the same ones named on our case page.

The Online Safety Act 2023 is enforced by the regulator, Ofcom. It is not the basis on which we would expect a family to bring a damages claim, which would more likely be brought in negligence.

If you or your child used Instagram or YouTube heavily growing up, you can check whether you may be eligible. If you are a parent, see our guide for parents. If you are 18 or over and used these apps as a child, see our guide for young people, including how time limits work. Our FAQ covers cost and time limits.

Sources

Last checked 11 October 2026. This file describes what the sources say. It is not legal advice, and a US result does not predict the outcome of a UK claim. It is checked against the sources above, and anything we could not confirm is left out or marked as unconfirmed.

Related case files

  • State of New Mexico v Meta — A state prosecution that produced $375 million in jury penalties and a $567 million order to repair harm to young people.
  • European Commission v Meta — Two preliminary findings against Instagram and Facebook in 2026: children under 13 and addictive design.

Were you or your child affected?

Free, confidential eligibility check. About two minutes.