Tech Addiction on Trial: Landmark Case Finds Meta and Google Negligent in Mental Health Crisis
If you, like many of us, spend most of your waking hours staring at screens—shuttling between function email, TikTok, YouTube, and group chats—you’ve probably wondered, at least half-jokingly, whether you’re “addicted” to your phone.
It’s a reasonable question, a Los Angeles jury recently decided. In a closely watched landmark case, the court found in favor of a 20-year-old plaintiff known as KGM, who sued Meta and Google, alleging that design features like infinite scroll, filters, and autoplay on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube contributed to her depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and self-harm. TikTok and Snap settled before the trial began. The verdict could open the door to thousands of similar lawsuits—and potentially lead to changes in how Big Tech competes for our attention.
The legal challenges, alongside growing brain research and concerns from health organizations, are adding urgency to a long-discussed question: Is “tech addiction” real? And if so, what does that mean for the business model that powers the world’s most valuable companies?
The Case of KGM v. Meta et al.
The case, P. F., et al. (K.G.M.) v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., began in Los Angeles County Superior Court in July 2023 and concluded on March 25, 2026, with a jury decision in favor of the plaintiff. KGM, whose first name is Kaley, initiated the lawsuit at age seventeen, alleging that the companies intentionally engineered their platforms to be addictive. She began using YouTube at age six, Instagram at nine, TikTok (originally Musical.ly) at ten, and Snapchat at eleven.
The lawsuit centered on features like infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and automatic video play, which KGM argued were designed to compel compulsive engagement. These features, she claimed, led to her struggles with anxiety, body dysmorphia, and depression. The jury awarded KGM $3 million in compensatory damages, with 70 percent attributed to Meta and 30 percent to Google.
Following the initial verdict, the jury will determine whether Meta and Google acted with malice or fraud, which will influence the amount of punitive damages awarded. Meta and Google both plan to appeal the decision. Snap Inc. And TikTok settled out of court in December 2025.
During the trial, both Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Meta, and Adam Mosseri, CEO of Instagram, testified. Judge Carolyn Kuhl ruled against Meta and Google’s motion for summary judgment in November 2025.
Is Tech Addiction Real? The Science Behind Compulsive Employ
Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, author of Dopamine Nation and an expert witness for the plaintiffs, argues that compulsive tech use activates the brain’s reward circuitry in a manner similar to drug addiction. Dopamine jolts from refreshing social media or winning a game can desensitize reward pathways and weaken the prefrontal cortex, making it harder to resist urges. Brain imaging studies have shown structural and functional changes in the brains of individuals diagnosed with internet gaming or social media disorders, resembling those seen in gambling and other behavioral addictions.
Yet, the concept of “tech addiction” remains debated. It is not formally recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which only flags “internet gaming disorder” as a condition requiring further study. Some researchers suggest labeling heavy tech use as an “addiction” can be counterproductive, potentially fostering a sense of helplessness. Research from the California Institute of Technology and the University of Southern California suggests that framing tech use as an addiction can produce individuals sense less capable of change.
What’s Next? Policy and Platform Responses
The KGM case has spurred discussions about potential policy responses, including state-level warning labels, restrictions on personalized feeds for minors, and even outright bans on teen social media in some countries. Platforms have already introduced opt-in safeguards, teen modes, and screen-time nudges.
Tech investor and author Nir Eyal cautions against asking companies to make their products less engaging, arguing that engagement is key to their value. He advocates for making products “better and safer” rather than less enjoyable. Meta maintains that social media is not “clinically addictive”, while Google argues that YouTube is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.