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 filings, tied to long-running litigation over migrant child detention standards, detail conditions at the Dilley detention facility, where children and families faced virus outbreaks and extended lockdowns in December and January.

Lawyers and monitors said conditions remained concerning even as the number of detained children declined in recent weeks.Under standards stemming from the Flores settlement, children are generally not to be held in custody for more than 20 days.

However, government data cited in the filings showed that about 595 children were detained beyond that limit during December and January.Of those, approximately 265 were held for more than 50 days and 55 for over 100 days, according to the documents.

This marked an increase from a prior disclosure indicating around 400 children exceeded the limit between August and September.Lawyers argued that prolonged detention, combined with reported deficiencies in care, risked worsening physical and psychological harm among minors.

Attorneys and advocacy groups cited cases of inadequate medical treatment, poor food quality and limited access to legal counsel. One filing described a 13-year-old girl who attempted self-harm after being denied prescribed antidepressants and access to her mother.

Government records referenced in the filings stated there had been no placements on suicide watch.Advocates who visited the facility in March said that while the number of detained children had dropped to about 85, systemic issues persisted. Reports also cited the presence of worms in food and insufficient healthcare access.

The case of a young child detained earlier this year drew protests, including demonstrations by detainees within the facility.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that detention standards provide for basic necessities, including adequate food and water, and described detention as a consequence of migration choices.

It added that authorities were working to expedite deportations.The administration of Donald Trump is seeking to end the Flores settlement, arguing it constrains enforcement and imposes costs.

The case is being overseen by Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, with a hearing scheduled later this month to review compliance and conditions.