Judge denies Meta and Google motions for new trial in landmark social media harm case

A California state court judge has denied post-trial motions by Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) and Google’s (NASDAQ:GOOGL) YouTube seeking a new trial, upholding a landmark jury verdict that found the tech giants liable for intentionally designing addictive features that harm the mental health of youth.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl issued the order on June 9, 2026, standardizing the court's stance on the litigation.

While the exact textual breakdown of Judge Kuhl’s legal reasoning was not immediately unsealed for public review, sources close to the proceeding confirmed the rulings effectively solidify the historic financial and legal penalties levied against the platforms.

The decision stems from a high-profile bellwether trial that concluded on March 25, 2026.

In that case, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google negligent in their product engineering, awarding $6 million in total damages to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., who alleged she developed severe depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia due to childhood addiction to Instagram and YouTube.

The $6 million sum was split evenly between $3 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering and $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta ordered to cover roughly 70% of the total liability.

Throughout the multi-week trial, legal counsel for the plaintiff argued that tech companies bypassed federal immunity protections by focusing strictly on content-agnostic design defects rather than host content.

Internal corporate records, including a Meta initiative dubbed "Project Myst," were introduced to show that executive leadership was aware features like infinite scrolling, intermittent notifications, and algorithmic engagement loops actively exploited the neurological vulnerabilities of developing adolescent brains to boost ad revenues.

Defense teams for Meta and Google petitioned for a total trial reset, asserting that the claims should be barred under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields internet platforms from liability regarding third-party user text and media.

By denying the retrial motions, the court has paved the way for the companies to elevate their structural defense to the California Courts of Appeal.