Written by: Haim Ravia, Dotan Hammer
Back in November 2025, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl of the Los Angeles Superior Court denied summary judgment motions filed by Meta, Google (YouTube), ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap in the bellwether case K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms et al., allowing claims by a young woman who alleged that social media platforms’ design features caused her depression, anxiety, and compulsive use to proceed to trial.
All four defendants argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment barred liability. Judge Kuhl rejected these arguments across the board, holding that the plaintiff had presented evidence that design features — such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and notification systems — harmed her independently of any third-party content.
The court held that “features of Instagram that draw the user into compulsive viewing of content were a substantial factor in causing her harm,” and that courts have “rejected use of a ‘but-for’ test that would provide immunity under Section 230 solely because a cause of action would not otherwise have accrued but for the third-party content.” On the First Amendment, the court found that “the allegedly addictive features of Defendants’ platforms (such as endless scroll) cannot be analogized to how a publisher chooses to make a compilation of information, but rather are based on harm allegedly caused by design features that affect how Plaintiffs interact with the platforms regardless of the nature of the third-party content viewed.”
The court also rejected each defendant’s argument that K.G.M. could not prove causation, finding disputed questions of fact for the jury — including expert testimony that design features on each platform were capable of causing the types of mental health harms K.G.M. alleged. On the failure-to-warn claims, the court noted undisputed evidence that K.G.M.’s mother “only learned of the dangers of social media from a ’60 Minutes’ program long after her daughter had been using the apps” and testified that had she known earlier, she “would have never given K.G.M. a phone and things would be different.”
Recently, on March 25, 2026, after a seven-week trial, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable on all counts. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages — with Meta liable for 70% and Google for 30%. The jury found that both Meta and Google were negligent in designing or operating their platforms, that their negligence was a “substantial factor” in harming the plaintiff, and that both failed to adequately warn users about the dangers of using Instagram and YouTube. Both companies have indicated they plan to appeal. The verdict is expected to influence approximately 2,000 pending lawsuits by parents and school districts against social media companies nationwide.
