The Medical Picture
This page explains what is known medically about social media use and youth mental health, and what the lawsuits allege about product design. The two are distinct. A medical condition can exist without a court finding that any product caused it.
What the Medical Record Shows
In May 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory titled Social Media and Youth Mental Health. The advisory reports that up to 95% of youth ages 13 to 17 use a social media platform. It cites a longitudinal study of U.S. adolescents ages 12 to 15 finding that those who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media faced double the risk of poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety. The advisory notes that as of 2021, 8th and 10th graders averaged 3.5 hours per day on social media.[2]
The advisory states that social media has both positive and negative effects on young people. It says that critical questions remain unanswered, there are known evidence gaps, and it cannot be concluded that social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents. An advisory is a public health statement, not a legal finding. It does not conclude that any company caused harm or violated any law.[2]
The Surgeon General's advisory does not provide a clinical diagnostic threshold for social media addiction or compulsive use. It does not define a medical condition by that name. It reports an association between hours of use and risk of mental health symptoms, but it does not establish causation or identify a point at which use becomes a diagnosable disorder.[2]
What the Lawsuits Allege About Product Design
The litigation pending in MDL No. 3047 and the California state coordinated proceeding JCCP 5255 involves claims against Meta (the parent of Facebook and Instagram), Snap (the maker of Snapchat), TikTok and its parent ByteDance, and Google (the owner of YouTube). Plaintiffs include individuals and families, school districts and other public entities, state attorneys general, and tribal governments.[7]
Plaintiffs in MDL No. 3047 allege that design features including infinite scrolling, algorithm-driven recommendations, notifications, and other engagement tools were designed to encourage prolonged use. The California Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that Meta designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that drive compulsive use by children and teens, while misleading users, families, and the public about the existence and severity of the risks. These are allegations. They have not been proven in court, and no final judgment on the merits has been entered in the broader litigation.[8]
In August 2026, a bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general announced a proposed settlement with Meta, subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment. The settlement provides for injunctive terms including default daily time limits, a block on overnight use that only a parent can lift, enhanced parental supervision tools, age assurance measures to detect users under 18 and children under 13, and an independent auditor. A settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.[8]
The Distinction Between a Medical Condition and a Legal Finding
A young person may experience symptoms of depression, anxiety, or compulsive behavior in connection with social media use. Those symptoms may be real and may require treatment. The existence of symptoms, or even a clinical diagnosis, does not by itself establish that a product caused them or that a company is legally responsible.
In March 2026, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury in the case K.G.M. v. Meta and YouTube found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent and liable for harm to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM. The jury awarded $6 million in total damages: $3 million in compensatory damages, split 70% to Meta and 30% to YouTube, plus $3 million in punitive damages, of which Meta was ordered to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The jury deliberated for more than a week. Meta said it disagreed with the verdict and was evaluating its legal options. YouTube said it disagreed and planned to appeal. The verdict applies to this one plaintiff.[5][6]
That verdict is the only jury finding of liability in this litigation to date. It does not establish a pattern or a conclusion that applies to other cases. The defendants have indicated they will challenge it. Thousands of claims brought by young people, families, and public school districts remain pending in MDL No. 3047 against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube.[9]
Settlements to Date
In January 2026, Snap and TikTok each settled with plaintiff K.G.M. shortly before and on the day of the first California state court trial. The amounts were not disclosed, and the companies did not admit liability.[3][4]
In May 2026, the first federal bellwether, a school district case brought by Breathitt County, Kentucky, settled before trial with Snap, TikTok, YouTube, and Meta. Terms were not disclosed; Reuters reported a combined value near $27 million. This was a school district settlement, not a payment to families.[3]
In August 2026, the bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general announced a proposed settlement with Meta providing for a monetary payment of up to $17 billion to the states over ten years, in addition to the injunctive terms described above. The payment goes to the states. The announcement describes no fund, claim form, or claims process for individual families.[8]
These settlements resolve only the claims of the parties who agreed to them. They do not end the broader litigation or establish that the platforms caused harm to other users.[9]
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show whether the court has entered the consent judgment approving the states' settlement with Meta. One outlet reported approval the same afternoon the settlement was announced; another reported it had not yet been entered.[11]
Post-trial status of the K.G.M. verdict has been reported but not verified from the court record. One tracker reports the verdict was allowed to stand and that Meta is appealing.[10]
Additional bellwether trials have been reported but not verified. The next personal injury bellwether trials in JCCP 5255 before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl are reported as set for October 2026. The next federal school district bellwether trials, Tucson Unified and Charleston County, are reported as set for February 2027. Trial dates move often, and these have not been verified from the court record.[10][12]
The record does not show how many claims remain pending in the California state coordinated proceeding. As of August 3, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation listed 3,137 pending actions in the federal MDL. That figure is federal only and does not include the California state court proceeding.[7]
For more on what the lawsuits allege, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For a full timeline, see our page on timeline and current status. For information on who the filed cases involve, see our page on who the filed cases involve.
Sources
- U.S. Surgeon General Advisory (2023) (2023-05-23). Primary document: hhs.gov
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-01-22). Secondary report: mdlupdate.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-01-27). Secondary report: spencer-law.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-25). Secondary report: npr.org
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-25). Secondary report: foxnews.com
- MDL No. 3047 (2026-08-03). Secondary report: migliorelaw.com
- Case 4:23-cv-05448-YGR (MDL No. 3047) (2026-08-18). Primary document: oag.ca.gov
- MDL No. 3047 (2026-08-26). Secondary report: levinlaw.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-26). Secondary report: mdlupdate.com
- Case 4:23-cv-05448-YGR (2026-08-26). Secondary report: cnbc.com
- MDL No. 3047 (2027-02-01). Secondary report: openclassactions.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-09-20. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.