A Los Angeles jury has sided with a young woman known as Kaley or KGM in a landmark case, ruling that the “addictive design” of Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube helped fuel her serious mental health problems. The closely watched bellwether case against the platforms’ parents, Alphabet’s Google and Meta, could set a precedent in thousands of similar lawsuits and force Silicon Valley to rethink the features that keep users endlessly scrolling.
After more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days—including testimony from KGM as well as from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders—California jurors decided Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms, and awarded the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who says her social media addiction exacerbated her mental health struggles, $3 million in damages.
The multimillion-dollar verdict will grow, as the jury will decide whether the companies acted with malice or fraud. They will hear new evidence shortly and head back into the deliberation room to decide on punitive damages. Meta and Google-owned YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap each settled before the trial began.
“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” a Meta spokesperson said when reached for comment Wednesday.
A spokesperson for YouTube parent company Google said the company also disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” the spokesperson said.
The decision also puts legal weight behind a term Big Tech has spent years trying to dismiss: tech addiction. As I reported in Fortune this week, and for the upcoming issue of Fortune Magazine, the intense debate about how harmfully addictive modern tech can be has escalated lately thanks to a slew of landmark legal cases against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap.
At a dedicated tech addiction rehab center outside of Seattle—one of very few such clinics in the U.S. or anywhere in the world—I met client Sarah Hill. The 21-year-old’s parents had flown her from Alabama to reSTART, a residential treatment program for digital overuse that treats compulsive tech use as a danger on par with alcohol or drugs. At the program, which costs around $1,000 a day, clients must abstain from smartphones, gaming, social media, and other technologies—often for months, and undergo intensive therapy sessions.
Hill told me that the situation got to a crisis point when she had spent so many nights holed up in her room talking to an AI chatbot on her phone that she fell behind in her college classes, lied to her parents, and ultimately failed out. “The last thing I saw was my mom resting her elbows on the counter and just crying,” she recalls. “That was the worst thing I ever saw.” On her first tech-free day at reSTART, Hill told me, she lay down on her bed and cried.
Hill is far from alone. reSTART cofounder Cosette Rae says she has treated around a thousand clients since opening the center nearly two decades ago, and spoken with many thousands more. She and cofounder Hilarie Cash launched reSTART in 2009 because they realized that there was nowhere else for those struggling with problematic tech use to go.
Rae’s patients aren’t simply dealing with bad habits, she says. They’re struggling with the fact that you can’t quit tech the way you might quit a substance. “When it comes to technology, it’s everywhere,” she says. “So you’re constantly being in front of it and having to say no.”
Scientists like Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff in the Meta and YouTube case, say that’s not just anecdotal. Compulsive scrolling and gaming tap the same reward circuitry as drugs, with quick dopamine hits training users to seek the next small “win.” Over time, repeated bursts of stimulation can desensitize those pathways and weaken the prefrontal cortex, which governs planning and self-control, making it harder to cut back even as school, work, or relationships suffer. Brain imaging studies of people with internet gaming or social media disorders show changes similar to those seen in gambling addiction.
Meta and YouTube have long argued that there’s no clear scientific proof their products cause that harm. Tech addiction isn’t recognized as a formal diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; only “internet gaming disorder” appears as a condition warranting more study. Some researchers worry that calling heavy use “addiction” can make people feel more helpless, not less.
But critics have long said that these products are designed to foster addiction. “These companies are in the business of attention,” the former tech investor and author of Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe, Roger McNamee, told me, weeks before today’s verdict. “Once they had attention, they were in the business of controlling the choices available to people in order to influence their behavior in ways that were profitable for the platform. That culture and that business model were guaranteed to produce lots of harm.”
Indeed, some watching the Los Angeles and other lawsuits move forward have anticipated a “Big Tobacco moment”—a reference to the 1990s lawsuits against tobacco companies that proved they were aware of the addictive nature of nicotine and the health dangers of smoking, and led to massive damages paid.
NYU professor and podcaster Scott Galloway, also speaking before the verdict, was even more blunt about what the attention race has meant for young people. “I don’t think [Big Tech] set out in their business plans to depress global youth,” he says. “I think their algorithms discovered that rage, self-esteem, and funny cat videos just keep people online.”
For Hill, the stakes are personal, not theoretical. She has now transitioned to an apartment owned by reSTART and carries a basic “dumb” phone with no apps or games. She still catches herself slipping into old patterns—like mindlessly scrolling through new screen backgrounds—but says something fundamental has shifted.
“After making so many mistakes, I’m finally putting a foot down and saying, ‘I want to get out of this endless cycle,’” she says. “I need to do something to better myself and my life.”
This article used reporting from the Associated Press.
In a landmark decision, a Los Angeles jury has ruled in favor of a young woman identified as Kaley or KGM, stating that the « addictive design » of social media platforms Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube contributed significantly to her mental health issues. This verdict against the parent companies, Meta and Alphabet’s Google, may set a precedent for numerous similar lawsuits and could compel tech companies to reevaluate the mechanics that keep users engaged for prolonged periods.
The jury deliberated for over 40 hours across nine days, during which KGM provided personal testimony alongside that of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech industry figures. Ultimately, the jury found that Meta and YouTube were negligent regarding how their platforms were designed and operated, awarding KGM $3 million in damages. Furthermore, the jury is expected to deliberate on punitive damages after hearing additional evidence regarding whether the companies acted with malice or fraud. TikTok and Snap settled prior to the trial, leaving Meta and YouTube as the primary defendants.
In response to the ruling, representatives from both Meta and Google expressed disagreement with the verdict, with Meta stating that they are considering their legal options and Google asserting that YouTube is a responsibly designed streaming platform, not a social media site. This case has legal implications that could validate the notion of « tech addiction, » a term that has been dismissed by the tech industry for years.
The growing discourse around tech addiction is gaining traction, highlighted by various lawsuits against major platforms like Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. A notable example includes reSTART, a rehabilitation center near Seattle specializing in treating digital overuse. Clients like Sarah Hill, who was sent to reSTART after struggling with compulsive technology use that led to academic failure and personal distress, exemplify the severity of this issue. Hill described her experience with technology addiction, detailing how interactions with an AI chatbot consumed her time and led to emotional turmoil for her family.
Cosette Rae, a cofounder of reSTART, has noted that many clients face challenges distinct from those of substance abuse because technology is ubiquitous; quitting is not as straightforward as it might be for drugs or alcohol. The constant presence of technology makes it difficult to avoid its influence entirely. Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, who testified for KGM, reinforced that compulsive behaviors linked to social media and gaming activate the same reward systems in the brain as drugs, leading to addiction-like symptoms.
Despite the jury’s ruling, Meta and YouTube have long claimed that there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove their platforms cause harm. They point out that « tech addiction » is not formally recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which only lists « internet gaming disorder » as an area needing further research. Some experts caution that labeling heavy tech use as « addiction » could lead to feelings of helplessness among users rather than encouraging positive change.
Critics argue that these platforms are intentionally designed to foster addictive behaviors. Former tech investor Roger McNamee stated that these companies prioritize user attention and subsequently manipulate choices that influence behavior for profit, which inevitably leads to harmful outcomes. Observers of the ongoing lawsuits anticipate a potential « Big Tobacco moment, » akin to the 1990s legal battles that revealed the tobacco industry’s awareness of the health risks associated with smoking.
Scott Galloway, an NYU professor, pointed out the unintended consequences of the attention economy, particularly regarding youth mental health. He suggested that while the tech giants may not have initially aimed to harm young people, their algorithms inadvertently promote negative emotions to maintain user engagement.
For individuals like Sarah Hill, the implications of tech addiction are deeply personal. Now living in a reSTART apartment and using a basic phone devoid of apps, Hill acknowledges the ongoing struggle to break free from previous habits but feels a significant shift in her mindset. She expresses a commitment to improving her life and stepping out of a cycle of dependence on technology.
The verdict in KGM’s case and the broader discussions surrounding tech addiction highlight the urgent need for reassessment of digital platforms and their impact on mental health, especially among vulnerable populations such as young people. As legal actions continue to unfold, the outcome could redefine the relationship between tech companies and their users, potentially leading to significant changes in how social media and streaming platforms operate.
