Cases and enforcement · Decided
K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (P.F., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 23SMCV03371; JCCP 5255 Social Media Cases)
Verified Checked against its sources on 4 sources quoted
- Court or authority
- US – California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (JCCP 5255, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl)
- Status
- JURY VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF (25 MAR 2026); POST-TRIAL MOTIONS DENIED (JUNE 2026); META APPEALED, YOUTUBE PLANS TO APPEAL
- Filed
- 2023 (complaint filed; exact filing date not confirmed from a primary source); verdict 2026-03-25
- Resolved
- March 25, 2026
- Case type
- Product Liability, Negligence
- Plaintiffs or complainants
- K.G.M. (identified by initials; first name Kaley)
- Defendants
- Meta Platforms, Inc. (Instagram), Google LLC / YouTube; Snap Inc. and TikTok settled before trial
- Settlement or damages
- $6,000,000 jury award against Meta and YouTube ($3M compensatory, $3M punitive); Snap and TikTok settled before trial on undisclosed terms
- Legal issues
- Addictive algorithms, negligent design, failure to warn, youth mental health, Section 230 immunity, product liability
Summary
First bellwether trial in California's coordinated social media adolescent addiction proceeding (JCCP 5255, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl). The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., alleged that design features of Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat, including recommendation and engagement features, made the platforms addictive to her as a minor and contributed to depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. Snap and TikTok settled with her before trial for undisclosed sums. On March 25, 2026, the jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and found that they failed to warn, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages (Meta 70%, YouTube 30%) and $3 million in punitive damages ($2.1 million against Meta, $900,000 against YouTube). In June 2026 the court denied the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Meta filed a notice of appeal in July 2026 and Google said YouTube plans to appeal.
Key dates
- March 25, 2026Resolved
- October 16, 2026Checked against sources
- October 21, 2026Checked against sources
Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: January 15, 2027.
Evidence
Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.
-
Ruling on Submitted Matter [P.F., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. 23SMCV03371]
Supports: case number and court
-
It awarded K.G.M. $3 million in compensatory damages, finding Meta 70% responsible for harm caused to the now 20-year-old plaintiff, and YouTube responsible for 30%.
Supports: verdict and compensatory damages
The jury decided on $2.1 million in punitive damages for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube, totaling $3 million.
Supports: punitive damages
-
Judge Carolyn Kuhl rejected the companies' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict – a request to throw out the jury's decision – and their motion for a new trial.
Supports: post-trial motions denied
-
Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Supports: Meta's appeal
TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.
Supports: Snap and TikTok settlements
José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal
Supports: YouTube's intended appeal
Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (P.F., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 23SMCV03371; JCCP 5255 Social Media Cases)”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/case-023/.
Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.
Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.
