A California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in designing platforms that harmed a young user, awarding $3 million and recommending another $3 million in punitive damages.

A California jury awarded damages to a young woman and assigned 70 percent of responsibility to Meta.

A California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their platforms and found that negligence substantially contributed to the plaintiff's harm.

The plaintiff, identified as KGM, testified that she became addicted to social media as a child and that the use worsened mental-health problems.

After more than 40 hours of deliberation, jurors awarded $3 million in compensatory damages.

Jurors recommended another $3 million in punitive damages after finding malice, oppression or fraud; the judge retains authority over the final punitive award.

The jury allocated 70 percent of responsibility to Meta and 30 percent to YouTube.

Meta and Google-owned YouTube disputed the verdict and said they would consider legal options, including appeals.

The case was a bellwether for thousands of lawsuits alleging that platform engagement features deliberately harmed young users.

TikTok and Snap settled before trial, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants.

A separate New Mexico jury had ruled against Meta earlier in the same week under that state's law.

The evidence supports a bounded conclusion: A California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in designing platforms that harmed a young user, awarding $3 million and recommending another $3 million in punitive damages. It does not resolve the remaining uncertainty because The verdict concerns one plaintiff, punitive damages were not final and appellate courts had not reviewed the legal theories. The factual horizon is therefore defined by Post-trial rulings and appeals and Results from additional bellwether cases using similar evidence.

The current reporting limit is specific: The verdict concerns one plaintiff, punitive damages were not final and appellate courts had not reviewed the legal theories.

The next verifiable developments are Post-trial rulings and appeals and Results from additional bellwether cases using similar evidence.