A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive digital products that contributed to harm suffered by a young user, marking the first case of its kind to reach trial and result in a verdict.

The jury awarded $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, with Meta ordered to pay 70% of the total and YouTube responsible for the remainder.The decision followed nearly nine days of deliberations after a six-week trial in Los Angeles superior court.

Jurors heard testimony from company executives, expert witnesses on addiction and social media, whistleblowers, and the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court filings as KGM.

The 12-member jury returned a 10-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff on all key questions, including whether the companies were negligent and whether their product designs were a substantial factor in causing harm.

Jurors also concluded that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks associated with prolonged use.

KGM testified that she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram, owned by Meta, at nine. She told the court that her use of these platforms became compulsive and had negative effects on her mental health.

According to her testimony, she experienced depression and engaged in self-harm by the age of 10.At 13, she was diagnosed by a therapist with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, conditions she attributed to her prolonged exposure to content and interactions on the platforms.

She also described strained relationships with family members and difficulties in school, which she linked to her social media usage.Her legal team argued that platform features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay functions were intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and create dependency.

During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer characterized these features as mechanisms that encourage prolonged use, likening them to engineered systems aimed at sustaining attention.

The plaintiff’s lawyers said the case reflected broader patterns affecting young users, arguing that similar harms have been reported by thousands of individuals and families. They stated that the verdict represented accountability for what they described as known risks associated with platform design.

Both Meta and YouTube said they would appeal the decision and rejected the jury’s findings. A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the verdict and maintained that teen mental health is influenced by multiple factors that cannot be attributed to a single platform.

The company said it remains confident in its efforts to protect younger users online.A spokesperson for YouTube also disputed the outcome, stating that the case mischaracterized the platform. The company described YouTube as a responsibly designed streaming service rather than a social media network and said the allegations presented in court were inaccurate.

Throughout the trial, both companies denied wrongdoing. They argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges were influenced by factors outside their platforms, including personal and environmental conditions. These arguments were rejected by the jury in its final determination.

The ruling comes amid increasing legal scrutiny of large technology companies over the impact of their products on younger users. The case is part of a broader set of consolidated lawsuits in California involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts.

The cases target multiple platforms, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, over alleged harms linked to social media use.TikTok and Snap reached settlements in the KGM case shortly before the trial began, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants in this proceeding.

The verdict also follows a separate ruling issued one day earlier in New Mexico, where Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a case involving allegations that it misled users about platform safety and enabled harm, including child exploitation.

Together, the rulings represent the first instances in which juries have held Meta legally accountable for harms linked to its platforms.KGM’s case is the first among more than 20 planned “bellwether” trials, which are intended to test legal arguments and assess how juries respond to evidence in similar cases.

These trials are expected to influence settlement discussions and shape legal precedent in ongoing litigation against social media companies.

The next bellwether trial is scheduled for July, while a separate series of federal cases involving hundreds of plaintiffs is set to begin in San Francisco in June.

The tech giant’s $1.375 billion deal with Texas marks one of the largest state-level privacy settlements, reinforcing that even Silicon Valley’s biggest players are not beyond legal accountability.

In a major legal development, Google has agreed to pay up to $190 million in legal fees to private law firms representing the state of Texas. The payment comes as part of a $1.375 billion consumer privacy settlement, closing a high-profile case that has drawn attention to Big Tech’s data practices and consumer rights.

The agreement also includes $71 million in legal fees for the Texas Attorney General’s office. Both Google and Texas’s legal teams have asked the state court in Midland to issue a final judgment approving the settlement, officially bringing the lengthy litigation to an end.

The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, accusing Google of violating residents’ privacy by collecting face geometry and voiceprints without consent. The complaint also alleged that Google continued tracking users’ locations even after location settings were disabled — and misled users about the privacy offered by its Incognito browsing mode.

Paxton, who has been vocal about holding tech companies accountable, emphasized that “in Texas, Big Tech is not above the law.” The state’s assertive legal action has become a model for other states seeking greater transparency and protection for their citizens’ data.

Although Google did not admit to any wrongdoing, the company said the accord resolves “a raft of old claims” and concerns about product policies that have since been changed. The settlement serves as a powerful reminder that even the world’s most powerful tech companies must answer for their data-handling practices.

Texas’s case was led by a team of powerhouse law firms, including Norton Rose Fulbright, Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, and Cotton Bledsoe Tighe & Dawson. These firms played a key role in shaping the legal arguments that led to one of the largest consumer privacy payouts in U.S. state history.

Documents revealed that Norton Rose Fulbright’s agreement with Texas allowed it to collect up to $3,780 per hour or 27% of any recovery amount — whichever was lower. The impressive fee structure underscores the high stakes of the case and the level of expertise required to take on a global tech giant like Google.

Texas, known for its aggressive stance on corporate accountability, has consistently worked with private firms in landmark lawsuits. The state is also collaborating with Cooper & Kirk and the Buzbee Law Firm in an ongoing antitrust case against major asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street.

This latest victory follows another major settlement in 2024, where Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, agreed to pay $1.4 billion to resolve a separate privacy lawsuit brought by Texas. Law firms Keller Postman and McKool Smith were expected to receive a combined $142.6 million in legal fees from that case.

For Texas, these settlements represent more than financial wins — they symbolize a growing movement to enforce privacy rights and demand accountability from digital giants. State-level litigation is becoming an increasingly powerful tool in the fight against unchecked data collection and opaque corporate behavior.

For Google, the settlement serves as both a financial and reputational reckoning. The company’s statement highlights its efforts to move beyond older practices, suggesting a broader industry trend toward stricter privacy compliance and greater consumer transparency.

The outcome of this case could also influence how other states pursue similar actions against major tech firms. With growing public concern about data misuse, consumer tracking, and AI-driven surveillance, the balance between innovation and privacy is under closer scrutiny than ever before.

Texas’s success in this case may encourage other attorneys general across the United States to take a firmer stance against Big Tech. The collaboration between state officials and elite private law firms demonstrates how legal partnerships can hold powerful corporations to account — and deliver results that protect citizens’ digital rights.

As the digital world continues to evolve, this record-breaking settlement sends a clear message: privacy is not optional, and accountability is non-negotiable.

Google’s $190 million payment to Texas’s legal teams marks not just the close of one lawsuit, but the start of a new era of heightened vigilance over how tech companies handle personal data.