Two recent state court verdicts in the United States have affirmed that design defects in social media platforms, combined with a failure to warn users of associated risks, may give rise to legal consequences. Increasing concerns surrounding child safety on these platforms have contributed to growing momentum in social media addiction litigation.
In March 2026, Meta and its subsidiaries were defendants in two significant proceedings. The State of New Mexico brought a public nuisance claim against Meta to enforce public policy, while an individual plaintiff, KGM, pursued a negligence claim for personal injury.
Public Nuisance – State of New Mexico ex rel v Meta et al
In the case of State of New Mexico ex rel v Meta et al, the State alleged that Instagram and Facebook violated public policies and consumer protection laws by enabling the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and human trafficking. It was further argued that Meta misled the public regarding the safety of its platforms.
According to the pleadings, Meta prioritised profit while remaining wilfully blind to harmful content circulating on its platforms. It was further alleged that Meta made reporting harmful content more difficult in an effort to reduce internal reporting and associated costs.
On 24 March 2026, the court held Meta liable for $375 million in civil penalties for violating New Mexico’s consumer protection laws. The remaining public nuisance proceedings commenced on 4 May 2026, with the State seeking a further $3.7 billion in an abatement plan. A court order was also sought to compel design changes aimed at improving child safety on Meta’s platforms.
Negligence – KGM v Meta et al
In the case of KGM v Meta et al, a now 20-year-old woman, alleged that she suffered personal injury as a result of Meta’s negligence. She argued that the platforms’ design features caused her to develop compulsive usage patterns, ultimately contributing to anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, suicidal ideation, and self-harm tendencies.
The claim was brought against multiple defendants, including Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. KGM pleaded that she began using these platforms from as early as age six.
On 25 March 2026, Meta (for Instagram) and Google (for YouTube) were found to have substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s harm. The Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded $6 million in damages, inclusive of $3 million in punitive damages, to KGM.
Liability was apportioned 70% to Instagram and 30% to YouTube. TikTok and Snapchat reached out-of-court settlements prior to the trial.
Understanding Negligence
The claims brought against Meta and YouTube were centred around the legal principle of negligence. Negligence claims rely on three key questions:
- Did the Defendant owe the Plaintiff a duty of care?
- Was that duty breached?
- Did the breach cause the alleged harm?
KGM pleaded that Meta owed her a duty of care, which was heightened by the fact that many of its users were minors.
The primary dispute concerned whether Meta had breached that duty and whether the breach caused KGM’s injuries.
The alleged breach arose from two primary allegations:
- Negligent design features.
- Failure to warn users of associated risks.
Negligent Design Features
Infinite scroll refers to the endless stream of algorithmically selected content on a user’s feed. KGM argued that this feature was particularly harmful to younger users, whose capacity for self-regulation and impulse control remains underdeveloped.
The proceedings also focused on “ephemeral content”, such as stories and livestreams, which allegedly encouraged compulsive engagement through a fear of missing out.
KGM’s lawyer told the jury:
“The moment [KGM] was locked into the machine, her mom was locked out.”
The jury also heard evidence that Meta’s internal communications compared the platform’s effects to drugs and gambling. Evidence was led that behavioural techniques, similar to those used by poker machines, were utilised to maximise engagement and revenue. This internal awareness was ultimately regarded as evidence of corporate knowledge capable of supporting liability.
Failure to Adequately Warn or Instruct
The duty to warn is not a novel concept. Occupiers of physical premises are generally expected to warn entrants of foreseeable hazards, such as slippery or uneven surfaces, through measures like wet floor signage or hazard markings. This duty may extend into the digital environment, even though the hazard is not physical in nature.
Meta argued that anticipating the self-control of users extended beyond the scope of its duty of care. However, KGM contended that the defendants failed to adequately warn users and parents of the psychological risks associated with prolonged platform use.
In particular, it was alleged that Meta failed to warn KGM and her parents when her screen time had reached harmful levels akin to addiction. Additional allegations included failures to warn users that images had been altered through filters, as well as broader physical and psychological risks associated with prolonged social media use.
Causation
The mechanism or cause of KGM’s injuries was heavily disputed. Meta argued that KGM’s mental health concerns stemmed from external factors, including family dynamics and pre-existing vulnerabilities. Meta maintained that adolescent mental health is highly complex and should not be attributed to a single factor, such as social media usage.
KGM, however, argued that Meta’s failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. She further alleged that, had adequate warnings or instructions been provided, she would have taken steps to mitigate or avoid the harm altogether.
The verdict held that the negligent design features constituted a substantial factor in causing KGM’s harm. It was accepted that Meta knew, or ought to have known, of the risks which users themselves may not have appreciated.
The jury further found that a reasonable platform designer in similar circumstances would have provided adequate warnings regarding those dangers. Consequently, Meta’s failure to warn or instruct users was found to have substantially contributed to KGM’s injuries.
Implications for Personal Injury Litigation
The decision represents a significant development for plaintiffs pursuing claims against social media companies. While the judgment reinforces the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable harm, it also invites debate as to whether the scope of liability may undermine personal responsibility for social media usage.
Features such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic content delivery, and engagement-based notifications have become normalised features of modern social media platforms. Although the decision remains subject to appeal, it signals a growing willingness by courts to scrutinise design features where they contribute to foreseeable psychological harm.
The verdict may prompt the implementation of clearer warnings, stronger safety features, and stricter age-verification measures to limit future liability. As public scrutiny intensifies and litigation gains momentum, these platforms may face a growing number of plaintiffs willing to test the scope of that liability.
