Name: Meta and YouTube found liable of negligence in social media addiction trial
Uploaded: 2026-03-26T23:02:04.000Z
Duration: 4 min 51 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Participle clauses

Breaking news out of Los Angeles: after nine days of deliberations, a jury has found Meta and YouTube negligent in their design and responsible for causing harm to a teen in a landmark decision.

The case centers on a 20-year-old woman's claim that her use of social media as a child addicted her to that technology, a jury agreeing, finding that both media giants both of those media giants liable,

and awarding the plaintiff, who's known as KGM, $3 million in damages.

The jury is now back deliberating to decide what, if any, punitive damages should also be awarded.

Let's get right to NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung.

NBC News legal analyst Misty Maris joins us as well.

Both of them have been following this case really closely.

What ultimately did the jurors decide here, and have we heard anything from either company, Meta or YouTube?

Well, what the jury decided here is that, in the case of both YouTube and Meta, that they were negligent in the way that they designed their apps, that that led to harm in this particular 20-year-old individual identified as Kayleigh GM,

And for that reason, that also harmed this particular plaintiff.

As you point out, this is a landmark trial because this could open up the floodgates for the over 1,500 other cases that are working their way through the legal system, with the jury here saying, yeah, these companies are liable and they do need to pay up.

You wonder if all these other cases are going to lead to the similar outcome as well.

I should point out that we did get statements from both companies in just the last few hours, Meta saying, quote, "They respectfully disagree with the verdict and evaluating their legal options," whereas YouTube saying outright that they disagree with the verdict and that they plan to appeal.

And they add that they don't see themselves as a social media site.

So you imagine that in the appeal process, that's going to come up.

But again, this is starting the kind of long legal battle that could unfold from here, but

The jury, that's the top line, finding both of these companies negligent.

44 hours of deliberations before the jury came back with it.

Are you surprised that it took that long?

And legally speaking, what happened here?

So the jury really had a lot to grapple with because they had to treat both defendants as if it were two completely separate trials.

So go through the analysis for Meta and YouTube.

And as Brian pointed out, the defenses were a bit different with both.

So they had to go through that verdict sheet and decide on liability.

And they weren't really given any guidance.

They were just told by the plaintiff's attorney, if you award damages, what is the loss of a childhood worth, right?

So they also had to come to a consensus on that number and then allocate that number between the two,

and then take that step further to decide whether punitives were appropriate under the circumstances, which they, in fact, did.

Oh, they did decide on the punitive damages?

But we know that the jury decided that the plaintiffs had gotten to that standard of whether or not the defendants acted with malice.

So this is a really, really high level by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiffs have to prove to be eligible for punitive damages.

So this is really a tremendous consequence, though.

It's a punishment, essentially, Brian, right?

But can we talk also about how this comes on the heels of another trial that was just decided yesterday?

And in that case, the verdict was that Meta, just Meta, they were a singular defendant in the case, needed to pay $375 million in civil penalties to young teens and children in that state.

Now, there were some differences between that New Mexico case and the Los Angeles case, most notably that in the New Mexico case, it was the state going after Meta.

And they also alleged that there were not protections in place being provided by Instagram to stop young kids and children from being targeted by sexual predators on the app as well.

Now, I know a lot of people are thinking, $375 million in New Mexico, only $3 million in Los Angeles.

But again, Los Angeles is about a single plaintiff.

That $375 million is just about children.

And I should point out, similarly to LA, there's going to be a separate hearing.

It's going to happen a long time from now, in May.

But that's going to be final claims where there could also be punitive damages as well.

So again, this is not the final number that these companies are going to have to pay.

Although I should point out, these are companies with massive coffers.

And I think that's actually the argument that we're hearing right now in this punitive stage of the LA trial, as the plaintiff's attorney is trying to appeal against the jury for potentially more money.

And we could talk about it, if that's right.

Thank you both, Brian Chung, Misty Maris, appreciate you, as always.

And remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.