Case Background
American children faced a mental health crisis that parents and experts linked to the addictive design of social media platforms. This legal battle began when several families, including Karen Glenn on behalf of her daughter, K.G.M., filed a lawsuit against major technology companies. The central figure in this specific verdict, K.G.M., started using social media at the age of 10. Her mother had tried to stop her by using security software, but the platforms’ designs allowed the child to bypass these parental controls.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that the tech companies intentionally designed their products to be addictive, using methods similar to those found in slot machines to keep young users scrolling. These features included endless feeds, intermittent rewards that manipulated dopamine, and notifications that encouraged constant checking. The lawsuit claimed these companies knew children were developmentally vulnerable but targeted them anyway to maximize advertising profits.
Injury
K.G.M.’s mental health declined rapidly as she developed a compulsion to use Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok around the clock. The platforms’ recommendation tools connected her with predatory strangers and exposed her to content promoting self-harm and disordered eating. She eventually suffered from severe bullying and sextortion on Instagram. These experiences left her with lasting emotional and physical trauma that required years of ongoing medical treatment.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain, and suffering. They also pursued punitive damages, arguing that the companies acted with malice or fraud by hiding the known risks of their products from the public.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial focused on whether the tech giants bore responsibility for the harm caused by their platform designs and whether they had failed to warn families about the dangers.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): K.G.M. and her mother, Karen Glenn.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Laura Marquez-Garrett | Sydney Lottes | Glenn S Draper | Lanier Rachel | Mariana Mcconnell
Defendant(s): Meta Platforms, Inc. (including Instagram) and YouTube, LLC (a subsidiary of Google/Alphabet).
· Counsel for Defendants: Mark C. Holscher | Lanier W. Mark | Lee Lennette | Ashley M. Simonsen | White Lauren Gallo
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Counsel for the Plaintiffs argued that the platforms were not just neutral tools but were "defective products" designed to exploit the psychology of children. They emphasized that the companies chose growth and profit over the safety of their most vulnerable users. The legal team presented evidence that the companies’ own internal research showed the risks, yet they continued to market the apps as safe for kids.
Claims
The Plaintiffs brought several claims, including:
Strict Liability for Design Defect: The platforms were inherently dangerous for minors.
Failure to Warn: The companies did not provide adequate warnings about the risks of addiction and mental health harm.
Negligence: The companies failed to use reasonable care in designing and operating their apps.
Fraudulent Concealment: The Defendants intentionally hid the negative impacts of their products to maintain their user base.
Defense
The Defendants generally maintained that they provided tools for parental control and that their platforms were designed to foster connection rather than harm. They argued that they were not responsible for the third-party content or the individual actions of users on their platforms.
Jury Verdict
On March 25, 2026, the jury reached a significant decision in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Liability and Negligence
The jury found that both Meta and YouTube were responsible for the harm caused to K.G.M. While they did not find Meta or YouTube negligent in the actual design or operation of the platforms, they determined that both companies knew—or should have known—that their platforms were dangerous for minors. The jury concluded that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about these dangers and that this failure was a substantial factor in K.G.M.’s injuries.
Compensatory Damages
The jury awarded K.G.M. a total of $3,000,000 in compensatory damages. They assigned the majority of the responsibility to Meta, which was held 70% liable, while YouTube was held 30% responsible.
Punitive Damages and Malice
The jury further found by clear and convincing evidence that both Meta and YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in their conduct. Consequently, they awarded punitive damages to punish the companies and deter similar behavior in the future.
Meta was ordered to pay $2,100,000 in punitive damages.
YouTube was ordered to pay $900,000 in punitive damages.
The total amount awarded to K.G.M. across both compensatory and punitive damages reached $6,000,000.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]