A jury finds YouTube and Meta negligent in a landmark social media trial

In a landmark decision, a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in designing apps that harmed children and teens and failed to warn them about the dangers.
The jury awarded damages of $3 million. The jury also found that punitive damages were justified.
The lawsuit, filed by a 20-year-old woman known as “Kelly,” alleges that major social media companies… intentionally They designed their platforms to be addictive. The lawsuit claims that features like auto-scrolling made the plaintiff addicted to the platforms, eventually leading to anxiety, depression, and body image issues.
Amy Neville, Alexander’s mother, reacts with other mothers and supporters outside court after a jury found Meta and Google liable in a major test case accusing Meta and Google’s YouTube of harming children’s mental health through addictive social media platforms, in Los Angeles, March 25, 2026.
Mike Blake/Reuters
A Meta spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News “We respectfully disagree with the ruling and are evaluating our legal options.”
The plaintiff’s attorney called the ruling “bigger than one case” in a statement to ABC News.
“For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their dangerous and addictive design traits,” the lawyer continued. “Today’s ruling is a referendum — from the jury to the entire industry — that accountability has arrived. We now move to the next phase of this trial focused on punitive damages.”

Amy Neville, Alexander’s mother, is embraced outside court as she awaits a jury’s verdict in a key test case accusing Meta and Google’s YouTube of harming children’s mental health through addictive social media platforms, in Los Angeles, March 25, 2026.
Mike Blake/Reuters
It turns out that the damages fall to Meta at a rate of 70 percent and YouTube’s liability at a rate of 30 percent.
The jury returned a “yes” answer to every question asked regarding negligence and failure to warn of the dangers. Ten jurors were in favor of the plaintiff on each question, and two in favor of the defense on each question.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.




