Two Juries, One Week, One Message: Social Media Companies Knew

Two landmark verdicts in 48 hours confirm what parents have long suspected: these platforms were designed to addict their children, and the companies knew it.

In the span of 48 hours, two juries in two different states reached the same conclusion. Social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to hook children. And then lied about it.

On March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, to pay $375 million in civil penalties for violating the state’s consumer protection laws. The jury found that Meta misled the public about the safety of its platforms and enabled child sexual exploitation. It was the first time a state has won a jury verdict against a major tech company for harming children.

One day later, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google’s YouTube negligent for designing platforms that addicted a young woman, known in court filings as K.G.M., to social media starting when she was six years old. The jury awarded her $6 million, split between compensatory and punitive damages, with Meta on the hook for 70 percent of the total and YouTube for 30 percent. The jurors concluded that both companies had acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

These are not isolated cases. They are the first verdicts in a wave of litigation that legal experts are comparing to the Big Tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s. More than 2,400 lawsuits are pending in federal court. Forty-two state attorneys general, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, have sued Meta. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled for this summer. TikTok and Snapchat have already settled claims rather than face juries.

The message from both courtrooms was the same. These companies knew their products were harming children, and they chose profit over safety.

What the Companies Knew, and What They Hid

The evidence that came out of both trials paints a damning picture of corporate decision-making. Internal documents, whistleblower testimony, and the companies’ own research tell a story of calculated risk. Executives understood the harm their platforms were doing to children and chose not to act.

Here is what the public record now shows.

2021: The Haugen Leaks. Frances Haugen, a former Meta data scientist, leaked internal research to Congress and the media. Among the findings: Meta’s own studies showed that 32 percent of teen girls said Instagram made them feel worse about their bodies when they were already struggling. The company had the data. It did not change the product.

Internal Memo: “Bring Them in as Tweens.” Documents shown to the Los Angeles jury included an internal Meta communication that read: “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” Another internal analysis showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to return to Instagram than to competing apps, despite the platform’s own policy requiring users to be at least 13.

7.5 Million Reports at Risk. In the New Mexico trial, prosecutors revealed internal messages from Meta employees discussing how CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s 2019 decision to make Facebook Messenger end-to-end encrypted would affect the company’s ability to report child sexual abuse material to law enforcement. At the time, Meta was reporting roughly 7.5 million such instances a year. The encryption decision prioritized a corporate objective over the detection of child exploitation.

The Undercover Operation. New Mexico’s case originated from an undercover investigation in which the attorney general’s office created social media accounts posing as children under 14. Within days, those accounts were receiving sexually explicit material and being contacted by adults asking for more. The operation led to criminal charges against multiple individuals. It also demonstrated, in real time, that Meta’s safety systems were failing.

YouTube’s “Slot Machines.” In the Los Angeles trial, plaintiff’s attorneys presented internal Google documents that referred to YouTube’s engagement features as “slot machines.” K.G.M. had posted 284 videos on YouTube before she graduated from elementary school. She started using the platform at age six.

Zuckerberg on the Stand. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in the Los Angeles trial in February 2026. Asked about the internal documents, he told the jury that keeping young users safe “has always been a company priority.” The jury evidently did not find that convincing.

What the Companies Say

Meta has said it “respectfully disagrees” with both verdicts and plans to appeal. A company spokesperson: “Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

In the Los Angeles trial, Meta’s attorneys argued that K.G.M.’s mental health problems came from a turbulent home life and childhood trauma, not from social media. Meta has also pointed to its 2024 launch of Teen Accounts, which include default restrictions for younger users.

Google’s response was more pointed. A spokesperson called the verdict a misunderstanding, saying: “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.” The jury rejected that framing.

Both companies have also tried to cast the lawsuits as an assault on free speech. Courts have largely rejected that argument, finding that plaintiffs are challenging how the products were designed, not the content posted by users.

How Social Media Platforms Are Designed to Addict Children

The legal theory that won in both courtrooms represents a real shift in how courts are evaluating social media harm. Instead of focusing on specific content children were exposed to, which would trigger Section 230 protections, plaintiffs argued that the platforms themselves are defective products.

Think of it this way. If a car manufacturer designs a vehicle with brakes that fail, the manufacturer is liable for that design. It doesn’t matter what road the driver was on. Plaintiffs in these cases are making the same argument about social media: the products were engineered with features the companies knew would cause harm, especially to developing minds.

The features at issue include:

• Infinite scroll. There is no natural stopping point. A book ends. A newspaper has a back page. Infinite scroll eliminates the cue that tells a user it’s time to stop.
• Autoplay. Videos begin playing automatically without any action from the user. That creates a passive consumption loop that’s hard to break.
• Push notifications. Engineered to pull users back at precisely calibrated intervals. Each notification triggers a small dopamine response that reinforces the habit.
• Likes and reactions. These function as variable-reward mechanisms, the same psychology behind slot machines. You never know when the next “like” is coming, which keeps you checking.
• Beauty filters. Alter a user’s appearance in real time, creating an idealized version of themselves they can’t achieve without the filter. Research has linked these filters to body dysmorphia in teenage girls.
• Algorithmic amplification. Content that drives engagement gets promoted, whether that content is harmful or not. The algorithm doesn’t distinguish between healthy engagement and compulsive, distressing use.
• Disappearing messages. Snapchat’s core feature automatically deletes photos, videos, and chats. That hides inappropriate conversations and makes it nearly impossible for parents to see what’s happening.
• Snapstreaks. Create social pressure to use the app every single day or “lose” a streak. For adolescents whose social standing feels fragile, that pressure can be overwhelming.

Children and teenagers are especially vulnerable to these design choices. The prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that handles impulse control, risk assessment, and long-term decision-making, doesn’t fully develop until the mid-twenties. Adolescents are wired to seek social validation, respond to peer pressure, and struggle with self-regulation. The platforms exploit those developmental vulnerabilities by design.

And critically, the products could have been built differently. Non-addictive alternatives exist. The companies chose not to use them.

It’s Not Just Meta. Every Major Platform Faces Accountability

Meta has absorbed the most visible losses this week, but the litigation reaches every major social media company. Each one is facing allegations rooted in the same core conduct: designing for maximum engagement while knowing children were being harmed.

Meta (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp)

Meta is the primary target. On top of the $375 million New Mexico verdict and the $4.2 million share of the Los Angeles verdict, Meta faces lawsuits from 42 state attorneys general, Illinois included, and is a defendant in the majority of 2,407 cases pending in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3047). A second phase of the New Mexico trial is scheduled for May 4, 2026, when the court will consider whether to force Meta to implement specific design changes: real age verification, algorithm modifications, and independent monitoring. Federal bellwether trials involving school district claims are set for June 2026.

YouTube (Google/Alphabet)

YouTube was found liable alongside Meta in Los Angeles, carrying 30 percent of the $6 million verdict. Its defense, that YouTube is a “streaming platform” rather than social media, was rejected by the jury. YouTube is a named defendant in MDL 3047 and faces claims in both federal and state courts. Internal documents at trial referred to YouTube’s engagement features as “slot machines.” Evidence showed the company knew children were heavy users.

TikTok (ByteDance)

TikTok settled with the K.G.M. plaintiff on confidential terms on the opening day of jury selection in January 2026, a decision that tells you something about how the company was reading the room. TikTok is a named defendant in MDL 3047 and faces separate lawsuits from 14 state attorneys general, including a suit filed by Illinois Attorney General Raoul in October 2024. TikTok’s algorithm-driven “For You” feed has drawn particular scrutiny for how quickly it can personalize content streams from minimal user input, building what researchers describe as a potent engagement loop for teenage users.

Snapchat (Snap Inc.)

Snap also settled with K.G.M. before trial on confidential terms. Its legal exposure runs beyond addiction claims, though. More than 60 families have filed wrongful death lawsuits alleging that Snapchat’s platform facilitated drug sales to teenagers, leading to fatal overdoses. The disappearing-message feature is alleged to have helped predators contact children without leaving evidence. Multiple state attorneys general have sued Snap for deceptive practices. The company is a named defendant in MDL 3047.

Reddit

Reddit’s legal exposure is growing but still lags the other platforms. In February 2026, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office fined Reddit £14.47 million (about $18 million) for failing to protect children’s privacy, finding that the platform lacked effective age verification and processed data on children under 13 without a lawful basis. The Texas Attorney General has opened an investigation into Reddit’s handling of children’s data. Reddit is not yet a named defendant in MDL 3047 for addiction claims, but the regulatory scrutiny is intensifying.

Emerging: Discord, Character.AI, Roblox

The litigation is expanding beyond traditional social media. A separate federal MDL addresses child sexual exploitation claims against Roblox, with 85 cases pending as of January 2026. The Texas Attorney General is investigating Discord and Character.AI for children’s privacy and safety failures. Character.AI faces individual lawsuits alleging that its AI chatbots engaged in harmful interactions with minors, a pattern that raises broader questions about AI safety and child protection.

The common thread is consistent across every platform. Companies designed for maximum engagement while knowing children were being harmed. The ones settling before trial (TikTok and Snapchat) seem to have decided that avoiding a jury verdict is worth the cost of a confidential settlement. The ones going to trial (Meta and YouTube) are now learning what juries actually think.

Illinois Is Already in This Fight

Illinois is not watching from the sidelines. The state’s attorney general has filed multiple lawsuits. Illinois-specific data underscores the scale of what’s happening here. And at least one Illinois family’s tragedy has become part of the national conversation.

Attorney General Raoul’s Lawsuits

In October 2023, Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a federal lawsuit against Meta as part of a bipartisan coalition of 33 states. The suit alleges that Meta’s business model targets youth with addictive design features that interfere with sleep and education, enable cyberbullying, and contribute to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and self-harm. It also alleges that Meta violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent.

In October 2024, Raoul filed a separate lawsuit against TikTok for similar practices targeting children. In August 2025, he co-led a coalition of attorneys general demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and AI companies adopt safeguards against predatory AI chatbots. In January 2026, he joined a coalition calling on xAI to prevent its Grok chatbot from generating child sexual abuse material.

The Scale of the Problem in Illinois

The data from the attorney general’s own filings is stark. Nearly one million Illinois teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17 access Instagram every month. Between 2020 and 2021, more than half a million Illinois teenagers in that age range were on Instagram every single day.

The Illinois Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, run by the attorney general’s office, has received more than 76,500 CyberTips since 2019 and been involved in more than 1,180 arrests of sexual predators. In 2025 alone, reports to the task force went up 45 percent from the year before, and the task force helped rescue more than 30 child victims from ongoing abuse. Those numbers are getting worse, not better.

Nate Bronstein: An Illinois Family’s Story

[KYLER REVIEW: The following section references a child’s death by suicide. The Bronstein family has been publicly vocal advocates for child safety online and was featured in the Illinois Attorney General’s press release announcing the Meta lawsuit. This section is factual, brief, and respectful. No method details are included.]

Nate Bronstein was 15 years old. He was a student at the Latin School of Chicago. By his parents’ account, he was a sharp, funny kid who loved sports and making people laugh. In the fall of 2021, classmates began cyberbullying him through Snapchat messages and group text threads. One message told him to take his own life.

On December 13, 2021, Nate reported the cyberbullying to a school administrator. According to a lawsuit filed by his parents in Cook County Circuit Court, the school didn’t investigate the report and didn’t notify Nate’s parents, even though Illinois law required them to do so. One month later, on January 13, 2022, Nate died.

Rose and Rob Bronstein, his parents, were featured in Attorney General Raoul’s press release announcing the Meta lawsuit. “Our son, Nate Bronstein, forever 15, is no longer with us because social media platforms have for far too long placed profits over children’s safety.” The Bronsteins went on to found Buckets Over Bullying, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting children from cyberbullying and social media harm.

Nate’s story is one family’s experience. But it reflects a pattern playing out across Illinois and across the country. Platforms that enable harmful interactions. Systems that fail to protect children. Families left to pick up the pieces.

Illinois Legislation

Illinois has been a leader on children’s online protection. In 2023, it became the first state to pass a law protecting child influencer earnings, requiring content creators to set aside a portion of compensation in trust for minors featured in their videos. The state has also considered legislation requiring social media platforms to provide parental safety controls through third-party APIs. Those legislative efforts, together with the attorney general’s enforcement, reflect a state actively working the problem.

Red Flags: Signs Your Child May Have Been Harmed by Social Media

Not every child who uses social media will be harmed. But the evidence from these trials, the attorney general’s filings, and the medical literature identifies consistent patterns worth watching for.

Behavioral Changes

• Pulling back from family and in-person friendships, replaced by online interactions
• Sleep disruption. Using devices late at night, unable to stop scrolling, exhausted during the day
• Declining academic performance or loss of interest in school
• Dropping activities they used to love, like sports, hobbies, or time with friends
• Increased irritability, anxiety, or emotional volatility when devices are taken away
• Becoming secretive about online activity, hiding screens, or deleting message histories

Mental Health Indicators

• New or worsening depression or anxiety, especially if it tracks with increased social media use
• Body image concerns or signs of disordered eating, especially in girls, and especially if tied to content viewed on social media
• Self-harm or expressions of self-harm ideation
• Statements of worthlessness, hopelessness, or a belief that they don’t matter
• Suicidal thoughts or statements

Platform-Specific Warning Signs

• Obsessive checking of likes, comments, follower counts, or view counts
• Distress over Snapstreaks, social media “status,” or perceived online rejection
• Using beauty filters on every photo or video, and expressing dissatisfaction with their unfiltered appearance
• Exposure to content promoting self-harm, eating disorders, or dangerous challenges
• Contact from unknown adults through any platform
• Evidence of cyberbullying, whether received or perpetrated

The age at which a child starts using social media matters. K.G.M. started YouTube at six and Instagram at nine. The younger the onset, the higher the documented risk. And the platforms know this. That’s why the internal memo said “bring them in as tweens.”

What to Document

If you think your child has been harmed by social media, start preserving evidence now.

• Screenshots of harmful content, messages, or interactions
• Device usage data (Screen Time on iPhone, Digital Wellbeing on Android)
• Medical records, therapy notes, and any professional assessments connecting symptoms to social media use
• School records showing behavioral or academic changes
• Any reports you made to the platform and how the platform responded (or didn’t)
• A timeline of your child’s social media use. Which platforms, starting when, how patterns changed over time

Legal Rights for Illinois Families

The verdicts in New Mexico and Los Angeles have confirmed that families can hold social media companies accountable for harm to children. If your child has been affected, here is what you should know.

Types of Claims

Families pursuing social media harm claims can bring several types of legal action.

• Product liability (design defect). The platform’s design features (infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, beauty filters, notification systems) are inherently dangerous to children. This is the legal theory that won in Los Angeles.
• Failure to warn. The companies knew their platforms were risky for children and failed to adequately warn parents or users. Both juries found this.
• Negligence. The companies failed to take reasonable steps to protect child users from foreseeable harm.
• Consumer fraud. The companies misled the public about platform safety. This was the basis of the New Mexico verdict.
• Wrongful death. When social media harm contributed to a child’s death, family members or estate representatives may pursue wrongful death claims.

Who Can File

• Parents or guardians filing on behalf of minor children who have been harmed
• Young adults who were harmed as minors and are now old enough to pursue claims in their own name
• In wrongful death cases, family members or estate representatives

What Damages May Be Available

The New Mexico and Los Angeles verdicts make clear that juries are willing to award significant damages in social media harm cases. Available damages may include medical and therapy costs, pain and suffering, loss of quality of life, and, where the evidence supports it, punitive damages meant to punish especially egregious corporate conduct. In wrongful death cases, damages may include funeral expenses, loss of companionship, and additional punitive awards.

Don’t Try to Figure Out the Deadline on Your Own

Every case has a window. Some are longer than you’d think. Some are shorter. Illinois has particular rules for claims involving minors, and there are doctrines that can extend a window when the connection between the platform and the harm wasn’t obvious at the time. None of that is something you should be sorting out on a Google search at 11 p.m.

If you think your child has been harmed, call Block Law. We’ll tell you what applies to your situation. No charge for that conversation, and no obligation after it.

In the meantime, evidence can be lost. Memories fade. Platforms delete data. The earlier the call, the more we have to work with.

A Note on the Federal MDL

More than 2,400 lawsuits are consolidated in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3047) in the Northern District of California. That proceeding coordinates discovery and pretrial matters across thousands of claims filed by families, school districts, and state attorneys general. Bellwether trials, test cases used to gauge how juries respond to the evidence, are scheduled for summer 2026. Some Illinois-specific procedural claims were narrowed in the MDL, but individual Illinois families can still pursue personal injury claims, and the multistate federal lawsuit Illinois is part of remains active.

What’s Coming Next

The legal landscape for social media companies is getting harder, not easier. Here is what is on the horizon.

• May 4, 2026. Second phase of the New Mexico trial begins. A judge, not a jury, will decide whether Meta must implement specific design changes: real age verification, algorithm modifications, removal of predators, and an independent monitor. If the court orders those changes, the precedent will reach well beyond New Mexico.
• June 15, 2026. First federal MDL bellwether trial begins in the Northern District of California. This case involves school district claims seeking reimbursement for mental health treatment, counseling, and educational costs tied to social media harm.
• August 6, 2026. Second federal MDL bellwether trial begins, involving state attorney general claims.
• Settlement pressure is building. TikTok and Snapchat have already settled individual claims on confidential terms rather than face jury verdicts. As more verdicts come in, the financial math shifts for the remaining defendants. Legal analysts have estimated potential individual settlement values ranging from $300,000 to $900,000 for severe eating disorder and self-harm cases, and $900,000 to $3 million or more for cases involving suicide.
• Regulatory momentum is growing. Australia has banned social media for children under 16. The UK is fining platforms for privacy failures. The former U.S. Surgeon General called for warning labels on social media platforms. The Kids Online Safety Act remains pending in Congress.

This litigation is not slowing down. It’s accelerating. Every verdict, every settlement, every new filing turns up the pressure on the companies to change how they design and operate their platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a social media company if my child was harmed? Yes. The New Mexico and Los Angeles verdicts confirm that social media companies can be held liable for harm to children caused by platform design. The strength of an individual case depends on its specific facts, including the nature of the harm, the child’s age and usage history, and the available evidence.

What if my child is still a minor? Parents and guardians can file lawsuits on behalf of minor children. Many of the cases in the federal MDL were filed by parents.

What if the harm happened years ago? Don’t rule yourself out. Illinois has rules that can extend the window for claims involving minors, and the discovery rule can sometimes reset the clock when the connection between social media and the harm wasn’t immediately clear. Call us. We’ll tell you whether your situation still has a path forward. That’s exactly the kind of question the free consultation is for.

Do I need to prove that social media caused my child’s mental health issues? Under the legal standard in the Los Angeles trial, no. You don’t need to prove social media was the sole cause. The plaintiff needed to show that the platform’s design was a “substantial factor” in the harm. That’s a lower threshold than proving exclusive causation.

What evidence should I preserve? Screenshots, device usage data, medical and therapy records, school records, any reports you made to platforms, and a timeline of your child’s social media use. Start documenting now. Platforms delete data, and specific incidents get harder to reconstruct over time.

How much does it cost to pursue a claim? Block Law handles these cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing upfront and nothing unless we recover compensation on your behalf.

What platforms are covered by these lawsuits? The current litigation involves Meta (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp), Google (YouTube), ByteDance (TikTok), Snap (Snapchat), and emerging claims against Reddit, Discord, Character.AI, and Roblox. If your child was harmed by any social media or online platform, it’s worth talking to an attorney.

Has any social media company admitted wrongdoing? No. Every company named in these lawsuits has denied liability and either plans to appeal or has settled on confidential terms without admitting fault. But the internal documents that have come out through litigation tell a different story than what the companies say in public.

If Your Child Has Been Harmed by Social Media

If your child has experienced depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, self-harm, cyberbullying, exposure to predatory content, addiction to social media platforms, or any other harm connected to their use of Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, or other platforms, you may have legal options.

Block Law is actively reviewing social media harm cases involving children and teens in Illinois.

Contact us for a free, confidential case review.

Call: 815-726-9999 Contact Block Law

You don’t need to have all the answers before you reach out. You don’t need medical records in hand or a complete timeline. If your child’s experience sounds like what you’ve read here, we want to hear from you. The consultation is free. It’s confidential. There is no obligation.

These companies had the resources to protect your child and chose not to. You have the right to hold them accountable.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about social media harm litigation and should not be construed as legal advice. Every case is different, and the outcome of any claim depends on its specific facts and circumstances. If you believe your child has been harmed by social media, consult with a qualified attorney who can evaluate your situation. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

The defendants named in this article deny the allegations against them. Meta and Google/YouTube have stated they disagree with the verdicts described here and intend to appeal. All allegations remain subject to further legal proceedings.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.