Just a few years ago, tech giants built their legal defense around a simple idea: they are merely platforms and not responsible for how users interact with content. This was the cornerstone of much of their defense in court.
However, the court ruled that Meta and Google can be held liable for harm caused to a teenager through the use of their platforms. And the key here is not the content itself, but the mechanics of the services.
We’re talking about recommendation algorithms, the endless feed, push notifications, and other design elements that keep the user’s attention for as long as possible. The court effectively agreed that these tools are not neutral—they are designed with a specific purpose: to increase time spent in the app.
This means that the platform can no longer hide behind the status of a “technical intermediary.” If a product is designed in such a way that it influences user behavior, that falls within the company’s sphere of responsibility.
Case Details
On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta (owner of Instagram) and Google (owner of YouTube) intentionally created platforms that are addictive and harmful to children’s mental health. The 20-year-old plaintiff, Kaylee, will receive $6 million.
The jury found that both companies “acted with malice, coercion, or fraud.” Kaylee was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Meta is to pay 70% of the total amount, and Google 30%.
Both companies stated that they disagree with the verdict and will appeal it. Meta noted that teen mental health is a complex issue and cannot be attributed to a single app. A Google spokesperson described YouTube as “a video-sharing platform, not a social network.”
Kaylee said she started using Instagram at age 9 and YouTube at age 6, and neither platform attempted to restrict her access based on her age. “I stopped communicating with my family because I spent all my time on social media,” she said during her testimony.
By age 10, she was experiencing anxiety and depression. She was later diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder—a condition in which a person is excessively preoccupied with their appearance. Kaylee also began using Instagram filters that altered her facial features—making her nose smaller and her eyes larger.
The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Instagram’s features, particularly the endless feed, are designed to create addiction. According to them, Meta sought to attract young users because they stay on the platform longer.
Instagram Head Adam Mosseri denied that using the platform for 16 hours a day indicates addiction, and described such behavior in teenagers as “problematic.”
In February 2026, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a grand jury. He referred to the ban on registration for children under 13. When shown internal documents indicating that Meta was aware of younger children’s presence on its platforms, Zuckerberg said he “always wanted faster progress” in identifying minors.
Snap and TikTok, which were also defendants in the case, reached settlement agreements with Kaylee before the trial began. The terms of the settlements have not been disclosed.
Addiction as Legally Significant Harm
One of the most important aspects of this case is the recognition of social media addiction as legally significant harm. Previously, such arguments largely remained in the realm of psychology or public discourse. Now, however, they are receiving procedural validation.
The case involves prolonged use of the platforms during adolescence, which, according to the plaintiff, led to serious consequences: anxiety, depression, and issues with self-esteem and body image. And the court views this not as an individual trait, but as a potential result of the system’s operation.
The key issue here is the cause-and-effect relationship. Whereas companies could previously argue that users choose for themselves how much time to spend on the app, the approach is now shifting: what matters is whether the platform itself creates conditions that encourage excessive use.
The issue of minors is particularly sensitive. The court notes that teenagers are a more vulnerable audience, and therefore companies must take this into account when developing their products. Inadequate age verification, a lack of restrictions, and aggressive algorithms can be viewed as negligence or even as a deliberate disregard for risks.
This opens up a new avenue for potential lawsuits. If this practice takes hold, we can expect a wave of cases not only in the U.S. but also in other jurisdictions where regulators are actively addressing digital platforms.
New Risks for Business: From Algorithms to Liability
This case directly affects any business that works with digital products, content, or user attention.
First, the importance of so-called product design liability is growing. If the interface, operational logic, or algorithms are designed to manipulate user behavior, this may become subject to legal scrutiny. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s a major social network or a small business’s mobile app.
Second, transparency requirements are increasing. Algorithms can no longer remain a “black box.” Regulators and courts are increasingly asking: how exactly is the feed generated, why does the user see certain content, and does this pose risks to their well-being.
Third, special attention is paid to working with children and adolescents. If a product could potentially be used by minors, businesses must implement protective measures—ranging from usage time limits to special security settings. Otherwise, the risk of liability increases significantly.
It is also important to understand that such cases are shaping new legal precedents, which are gradually influencing legislation. Initiatives to limit algorithmic influence, strengthen oversight of platforms, and impose additional obligations on tech companies are already being discussed in various countries.
Meta and Google’s defeat is not just an isolated cou
rt case, but a marker of a shift in the approach to digital responsibility. The world is gradually moving away from a model where a platform is merely a “tool” and toward one where it is held accountable for the consequences of its architecture.
For businesses, this means the need to think more broadly: not just about functionality and profit, but also about how the product affects the user. And this impact is no longer abstract; it can have very concrete legal consequences.
In this new reality, those who anticipate risks in advance—rather than reacting to them after the fact—will come out ahead. If you work with online platforms, create digital products, or use algorithms to interact with your audience—you should assess potential legal risks right now. Our team will help analyze your product, identify vulnerabilities, and build a legally sound operating model.
