THE NEW YORK TIMES: What to know about the social media addiction trials

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury held Meta and YouTube liable for claims their platforms are addictive and have harmed young users, and ordered them to pay a combined $6 million in damages.

The verdict was the first in a series of trials expected this year in which plaintiffs’ lawyers are testing a novel legal theory claiming that Meta, YouTube, Snap and TikTok caused personal injury through defective products.

Thousands of individuals, school districts and state attorneys general have filed similar lawsuits. This week’s win could open the door to an avalanche of similar claims.

Here’s what to know.

What are the cases about?

These cases test the argument that social media was built to be addictive, like cigarettes or casino slot machines.

The lawsuits claim that social media features like infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, notifications and videos that play automatically lead to compulsive use. The plaintiffs contend that the resulting addiction has led to problems like depression, anxiety, eating disorders and self-harm, including suicide.

The cases have drawn comparisons to those against Big Tobacco in the 1990s, when companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds were accused of hiding information about the harms of cigarettes.

What was the first lawsuit about?

The first plaintiff was a 20-year-old woman from California identified as K.G.M. in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County.

K.G.M. created a YouTube account at age 8, then joined Instagram, which is owned by Meta, at 9. In her lawsuit, she claimed she became addicted to the social media sites as a child and experienced anxiety, depression and body-image issues as a result.

K.G.M.’s lawyer said during opening statements that Instagram and YouTube’s apps were built like “digital casinos” that profited off addictive behaviour.

The trial lasted five weeks, and jurors deliberated for more than a week.

On Wednesday, all but two of the jurors determined that Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing their platforms, and that their products harmed K.G.M.

More trials will follow?

Yes, judges have bundled some of the strongest cases among the thousands of suits that were filed to act as bellwethers. A total of nine cases are expected to be heard in the series of trials in Los Angeles, including K.G.M.’s.

This summer, a separate set of federal cases will go to trial in Oakland, California, at the U.S. District Court of Northern California. In that series of cases, school districts and states plan to argue that social media is a public nuisance and that they have had to shoulder the costs of treating a generation of youths suffering from addictive social media use.

In another case, a New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta liable for violating state law by failing to safeguard users of its apps from child predators, in a case brought by the state attorney general.

How are the companies defending themselves?

Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube, which is owned by Google, all argue that there is no clear scientific link between tech use and addiction and insist there needs to be strong proof that their products significantly harmed young users.

The social media companies have cited a federal shield law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that protects them from liability for what their users post online.

Snap, which owns Snapchat, and TikTok reached settlements with K.G.M. for undisclosed amounts.

Meta said during K.G.M.’s trial that her health issues were caused by familial abuse and turmoil. The company presented medical records to show that social media addiction was not a focus of her therapy sessions.

Meta’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, and the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, defended the company during the trial. The executives rejected claims that Instagram could be described as “clinically” addictive.

YouTube said that it was not a social media company and that its features were not designed to be addictive.

Both companies said Wednesday they were disappointed with the verdict. Meta said it was examining its legal options, and YouTube said it plans to appeal.

What’s at stake?

The plaintiffs are asking for monetary damages and potential design changes to the platforms to prevent addictive behaviour.

In K.G.M.’s trial, Meta must pay $4.2 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages, and YouTube must pay $1.8 million.

In New Mexico, the jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million. The state attorney general, Raúl Torrez, said he will ask for additional damages and changes to the design of the platform.

While those amounts are drops in the bucket for the companies, which bring in billions in revenue, the losses are significant as global attitudes shift against social media companies. And the wins open the door to millions of other claims by social media users.

If the companies are forced to make changes to their products, it could harm their broader business models.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2026 The New York Times Company