For years, concerns about social media and teenagers' mental health played out mainly in research journals, congressional hearings and family arguments over screen time. In 2026, they moved into courtrooms. A series of trials and settlements this year is testing whether technology companies can be held legally responsible for designing apps that keep young people hooked, and the early results have mostly gone against the companies.
The first verdict
The first major test came in Los Angeles. A 20-year-old woman, identified in court as K.G.M., sued Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and Google's YouTube, saying she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles [1]. TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat, were originally named but settled before trial for undisclosed amounts [1]. After a roughly five-week trial, a jury on March 25, 2026, found that negligence by Meta and YouTube was a substantial factor in causing her harm. It found that Meta designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages plus $3 million in punitive damages [1][3]. The judge denied the companies' requests to overturn the verdict or order a new trial, and Meta filed a notice of appeal in July. YouTube has said it also plans to appeal [1]. Meta has maintained that "teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app" [1].
How plaintiffs got around Section 230
The cases turn on a key legal question. A 1996 federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, generally shields online platforms from liability for content their users post. Lawyers in the Los Angeles case argued that their claims were not about content but about product design, targeting features such as infinite scroll and autoplay that they said were engineered to maximize engagement [1]. The companies objected that those claims still reached into protected content [1]. How appeals courts resolve that argument could determine the fate of thousands of similar cases.
New Mexico and the schools
One day before the Los Angeles verdict, a jury in New Mexico sided with that state's attorney general and found that Meta's platforms harm children's mental health and safety, assessing a $375 million penalty [1]. Later reporting described a New Mexico judge ordering Meta to pay $567 million in that case [4]. Meta says it disagrees and will appeal [1]. School districts have also sued, arguing that social media addiction has disrupted learning and forced schools to spend heavily on student mental health services. More than 1,200 districts have filed suit [2][3]. The first school district case scheduled for federal trial was brought by the Breathitt County School District, a rural district of about 1,600 students in eastern Kentucky. It sought more than $60 million for mental health programs and a court order to reduce addictive features [3]. YouTube, Snap and TikTok settled in May, and Meta settled on May 21, weeks before the trial was to begin. Terms were not disclosed [2][3]. "We've resolved this case amicably," a Meta spokesperson said, while the district's lawyers said they would keep "pursuing justice for the remaining 1,200 school districts" [3].
The states' trial
The biggest case so far began on August 18 in federal court in Oakland, California. A bipartisan coalition of 29 states, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, accuses Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to hook young users, misleading the public about their safety and illegally collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent [4][5]. The states have asked for changes such as eliminating likes and infinite scroll, setting time limits for younger users and keeping children under 13 off the platforms. They have provisionally estimated penalties of about $193 billion, while Meta has said the potential figure could reach $1.4 trillion [4][5]. An eight-person jury is serving in an advisory role, and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide Meta's liability [4]. The trial was scheduled to last about six weeks, and as of early October no final ruling had been reported in the sources reviewed for this article. The states' first witness was Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer turned whistleblower [4]. Internal documents shown in the case indicate that Meta researched how teenagers' brains respond to dopamine, with one document concluding that "this presents opportunities for us," according to public radio coverage [6].
The two sides
Meta denies that its products are addictive or that it intentionally sought to addict children. Its lawyers point out that "social media addiction" is not a recognized medical diagnosis and argue that research does not show a clear link between adolescents' social media use and lower well-being [4][6]. Some legal scholars share concerns about the lawsuits. Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor, argues that social media provides significant benefits to many young people and that "nobody is representing their interests" in these cases [6]. Others say the companies have had years to act. Jen King, a privacy fellow at Stanford, told public radio that Meta could have made its platforms much more kid-friendly long ago but did not because it would have cost money [6].
What other states are doing
The trials are not the only pressure on social media companies. Tennessee's attorney general is pursuing a separate case against Meta over Instagram, which was on trial in Nashville in August [4]. Many states have also passed laws requiring age verification, limiting phone use in schools or restricting features for minors, and some experts say the litigation is accelerating those efforts. Jen King of Stanford told public radio that stricter measures such as bans and age verification are emerging because the company has not "given any ground" [6].
Why it matters
The scale of the litigation is enormous. More than 3,300 addiction-related cases are pending in California state court and about 2,400 more in federal court, and Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated a theoretical liability across the industry of almost $400 billion [2][3]. Beyond money, the cases could force design changes that Congress has debated for years without passing major legislation. If courts accept the argument that addictive design is a product defect, the way apps are built for young users could change, not because of a new law but because of a jury.
Sources
- 1. "Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users," Associated Press via News4JAX, July 10, 2026. https://www.news4jax.com/business/2026/07/10/meta-appe als-landmark-jury-verdict-that-found-it-to-blame-for-social-media-addiction-for-young-users/
- 2. "Snap, YouTube, TikTok Settle School Suit Targeting Social Media," Bloomberg via Insurance Journal, May 18, 2026. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/05/18/870208.htm
- 3. "Meta Settles First Case Over School Costs Tied to Youth Mental Health: Court Filing," Bloomberg via Insurance Journal, May 22, 2026. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/05/22/871046.htm
- 4. "Meta faces 29-state trial that could reshape Instagram and Facebook," Reuters via The Star, August 18,
- 2026. https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2026/08/18/meta-faces-29-state-trial-that-could-reshape -instagram-and-facebook
- 5. "Arrancan los alegatos en el juicio a Meta por presunta adicción de adolescentes," Teletica (AFP), August 18, 2026. https://www.teletica.com/internacional/arrancan-los-alegatos-en-el-juicio-a-meta-por-presunta-ad iccion-de-adolescentes_415654
- 6. "A group of attorneys general is suing Meta over mental health risks for youths," Boise State Public Radio (NPR), August 17, 2026. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/2026-08-17/a-group-of-attorneys-general-is -suing-meta-over-mental-health-risks-for-youths Information in this article is current as of October 10, 2026. Bracketed numbers refer to the sources listed above.