Meta Appeals $3 Million Social Media Addiction Verdict in Los Angeles
Updated
Updated · abcnews.com · Jul 11
Meta Appeals $3 Million Social Media Addiction Verdict in Los Angeles
3 articles · Updated · abcnews.com · Jul 11
Summary
Meta filed a notice of appeal in Los Angeles County Superior Court after a jury found its platform design substantially contributed to a young woman’s social media addiction and mental health harm.
The March verdict awarded Kaley, identified in court as KGM, $3 million in damages and recommended another $3 million in punitive damages over features such as infinite scroll and autoplay.
That appeal follows Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl’s early-June rejection of Meta’s post-trial bids to overturn the verdict or win a new trial; YouTube said it also plans to appeal.
The case is being closely watched because plaintiffs sidestepped Section 230 protections by targeting platform design rather than third-party content, a strategy that could shape thousands of similar lawsuits.
Meta is already fighting another setback: a New Mexico jury a day earlier than the California verdict imposed a $375 million penalty after finding its platforms harm children’s mental health and safety.
Facing billions in penalties over platform design, is social media the new Big Tobacco?
Could a 20-year-old's victory dismantle the legal shield protecting all of Big Tech?
Will courts force an end to 'infinite scroll,' changing your social media feed forever?
Social Media on Trial: How a $6 Million Verdict Against Meta and Google Signals a Big Tobacco Moment for Tech
Overview
On July 10, 2026, Meta Platforms and Google both moved to appeal a landmark $6 million verdict that found them liable for social media addiction harms in the K.G.M. case. This followed the Los Angeles Superior Court’s June 11 decision, which denied their post-trial motions and kept the full award intact. Judge Carolyn Kuhl upheld that Instagram’s design features significantly contributed to the plaintiff’s harm and that Meta failed to warn minors about addictive risks. The case marks a turning point, signaling that tech companies may be held responsible for the design choices of their platforms and their impact on young users.