Jury Brands Instagram ‘Cigarettes For Kids’

Lawsuit paperwork with pen and open book.

A California jury just compared Instagram and YouTube to cigarettes and casinos—and a judge refused to let Meta escape the blame.

Story Snapshot

Los Angeles jurors found Meta and Google liable for designing addictive platforms that harmed a young woman’s mental health.
The court upheld a $6 million verdict, rejecting Meta’s attempt to throw out the decision or get a new trial.
Internal focus on features like infinite scroll, autoplay, filters, and push alerts is now at the center of legal risk.
The case is part of a nationwide wave of lawsuits claiming big tech profits while kids pay the price in anxiety and depression.

Landmark verdict: social media design on trial

In Los Angeles County, a jury ruled that Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube were a major cause of a young woman’s depression, anxiety, body image issues, and suicidal thoughts. The plaintiff, known publicly as K.G.M., started using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and said she could not stop. Jurors agreed the platforms’ design was a “substantial factor” in her mental health harm and awarded $6 million in total damages, with Meta responsible for $4.2 million and Google for $1.8 million.

Jurors did more than say the apps were harmful—they said they were built to be addictive. The verdict found Meta 70 percent liable and Google 30 percent liable for deliberately designing features that hooked young users. Reporting from the trial describes jurors viewing Instagram and YouTube as products as addictive as cigarettes and casinos for kids and teens. This moves the debate beyond “bad content” and toward the core question many parents ask: did tech companies design these platforms to keep our children glued to their screens, no matter the cost?

Judge rejects Meta’s bid to walk away

After the verdict, Meta asked the California judge to throw out the jury’s decision or order a new trial, arguing the ruling was legally flawed and that “social media addiction” is not clearly defined in science. The court refused and left the full $6 million verdict in place, including $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. In upholding the jury, the judge found strong evidence that Instagram’s design was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s harms and that Meta failed to warn young users about addiction risks or act responsibly.

The court’s written decision went further, saying Meta’s operation of Instagram showed a “willful and conscious disregard” for child safety, while YouTube put profits over user safety. That language matters. It echoes the way courts once talked about tobacco companies hiding what they knew about smoking and health. Advocates for families now openly describe this case as a “Big Tobacco moment” for social media, where internal knowledge and design decisions finally meet legal consequences. For many Americans who distrust federal regulators and political leaders, seeing a jury and a local judge push back on a giant tech company feels like one of the few checks that still works.

How features like infinite scroll became evidence

At trial, the plaintiff’s team focused on specific design choices, not just screen time in general. They pointed to infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, beauty filters, and constant push notifications as tools meant to keep children and teens on the apps longer. A psychiatrist who studies teen addiction testified that these features tap into the same dopamine reward pathways in the brain that are triggered by slot machines and other addictive behaviors. This helped jurors see design as more than “fun features”—it made those choices look intentional and dangerous when aimed at kids.

These details matter because they may open a path around legal shields that tech firms have leaned on for years. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act often protects platforms from being sued over user content. But this case did not blame Meta and Google for specific posts; it blamed them for how the product itself was built. Legal analysts say this verdict shows courts may treat engagement-maximizing design—like endless feeds and autoplay—as a product defect when young people are harmed. That shift could reshape how tech works, much as earlier lawsuits changed car safety design or cigarette marketing.

A growing wave of lawsuits and public anger

This case is not a one-off fight. Since 2023, thousands of social media addiction lawsuits have been filed against major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and others. Many claims look similar: companies allegedly engineered apps around engagement tricks that keep users online, especially children, and that pattern has fed a youth mental health crisis. More than 40 state attorneys general have also sued Meta, accusing it of valuing growth and profit over the safety of young users and worsening anxiety and depression among teens.

A profile of Kaley Glenn-Mills, the plaintiff in K.G.M. v. Meta et al., who was awarded $6M in damages in a landmark LA jury trial over social media addiction — Kaley Gle via Olivia Carville/Bloomberghttps://t.co/mN3LN0XNcf

— WillSee (@ExodusT1000) July 6, 2026

In New Mexico, a separate jury recently found that Meta misled users about safety and harmed children’s mental well-being, identifying thousands of violations of the state’s consumer protection law and opening the door to $375 million in penalties. Put together, these rulings send a clear message that reaches across party lines: many Americans on the right and left feel big tech acts like an unaccountable elite, chasing engagement and ad dollars while families struggle with the fallout. Courts are now one of the few places where ordinary citizens can force those companies to answer for that gap between profit and responsibility.