de-amplify_
← back to the lawsuits

case file · the California bellwethers

K.G.M. v. Meta and Google: the California bellwether verdict

About this page. Where the record stood as of July 25, 2026, with the first-bellwether trial section updated August 20, 2026 to record that Meta's chief executive testified in it; this litigation moves weekly, and every figure carries its date. Claims are labeled: court-held, jury-found, evidence cited, requested, scheduled. This page is the reader's rendering of the project's evidence-tiered claim ledger for the California state cases; corrections land in the ledger first, then here.

The case in one paragraph

In California state court, about 1,600 youth-harm suits from individuals, families, and school districts are coordinated as JCCP 5255, with test cases going first. The first, K.G.M. v. Meta and Google, brought a $6 million verdict in March 2026; the trial judge declined to overturn it and both companies are appealing, so it is not final. A second test case was set for July 27, 2026, but it never reached a jury: YouTube, TikTok and Snap all settled out and the plaintiff dropped Meta on July 22, 2026. (As of July 25, 2026.)

The California coordination, not the federal case

JCCP 5255 (captioned "Social Media Cases," Department 12, Spring Street Courthouse, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl presiding) is a state-court coordinated proceeding. It is routinely confused with the federal MDL, which is a different proceeding in a different court before a different judge; a verdict in one does not decide the other. The roughly 1,600 coordinated suits include more than 350 families and more than 250 school districts alongside individual young plaintiffs, and the count keeps rising.

The first bellwether verdict, labeled

  • Jury-found, March 25, 2026: a $6 million verdict, $3 million compensatory plus $3 million punitive, against Meta and Google. Fault was allocated 70/30: Meta $4.2 million, Google $1.8 million, which is why some outlets report only Meta's share.
  • The jury found the companies negligent in the design of their apps (features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications built to maximize engagement) and found they failed to adequately warn young users. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M. ("Kaley"), said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube beginning in childhood.
  • Only two companies faced the jury because Snap and TikTok settled out of this first test case around the turn of 2026, TikTok as jury selection was beginning.
  • Mark Zuckerberg testified in person, on February 18, 2026, five weeks before the verdict, reported as his first testimony about child safety in front of a jury. Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified about a week earlier. Coverage records Zuckerberg denying that Meta seeks to make Instagram addictive or that he directs the company to increase time spent or recruit under-13s, calling enforcement of Instagram's age limits very difficult, and being questioned about the decision to permit filters simulating cosmetic surgery after internal expert objections. Carried by several independent outlets rather than by a transcript, for the reason in the sourcing caveat below.

After the verdict

  • Court-held (trial court): in early June 2026 (the ruling was announced June 10), Judge Kuhl denied the defendants' motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, leaving the full award intact.
  • Both defendants then filed notices of appeal in Los Angeles County Superior Court: Meta in early July, YouTube on July 13, 2026. A notice starts a potentially long process; no appellate court has reviewed the verdict, and honest reporting keeps that caveat attached.

The second bellwether: it never reached a jury

The second test case was set for trial on July 27, 2026 before Judge Kuhl, and it dissolved in the month before that date. YouTube settled its part confidentially (reported June 23, 2026), TikTok followed on June 30, and Snap reached a tentative settlement announced July 20. On July 22, 2026, with every other defendant resolved, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against Meta.

Read the posture precisely, because the four events are not the same kind of thing. Three companies settled. The fourth did not: this was the plaintiff withdrawing, not a settlement with Meta, not a defense verdict, and not a continuance, and on the available reporting Meta paid nothing. Plaintiff's counsel said he "has elected to withdraw his claims against Meta" given "the overall successful result of the litigation" and the prospect of a weekslong trial. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice is not established, which matters, because without prejudice the claim could be refiled.

The plaintiff is a 15-year-old identified as R.K.C. ("Russell"); he lives in Florida, but the case is this California proceeding, not a Florida or federal matter. Pretrial coverage had reported the judge tentatively allowing testimony from senior executives including Meta's Mark Zuckerberg; that testimony never happened, because this second case never reached a jury. Do not read that as Zuckerberg never testifying in this coordinated proceeding: he did, in the first bellwether above, in February 2026.

A sourcing caveat this page owes you. The Los Angeles Superior Court docket is not publicly retrievable online, so the settlement and the dismissal above rest on news coverage, not a court filing. They are corroborated across several independent outlets and a Meta statement, and they are recorded in the case ledger at the weaker evidence tier for exactly that reason.

Why this case matters for the brake

This was the first jury anywhere to put a dollar number on the design itself: not a post, not a moderation call, but infinite scroll, autoplay, and notifications as negligently built machinery with no adequate warning. That is the product question, and it is the same one the brake integrity standard proposes to make testable before the harm instead of priced after it. The scorecard is that test.

The full evidence ledger behind this page, every claim tiered and traced against the trial record, is at the California bellwethers distillation.

Sources

Primary: the LA Superior Court's public notice for the Social Media Cases (JCCP 5255) (court-issued, February 2026). Secondary: AP via the Washington Times (the appeals); NPR and Al Jazeera (the verdict); MediaPost and Reuters (the post-trial ruling); Scientific American (the coordination's composition); Fox Business and The Next Web (the second-bellwether settlements).

Provenance: this page is derived from the project's per-case, evidence-tiered claim ledger for the California bellwethers (a distillation record maintained in the repository), first seeded July 16, 2026 after a primary-source audit and re-seeded July 25, 2026 after the second bellwether dissolved. Corrections flow ledger-first: the ledger is verified, then this page is re-seeded. One date is deliberately soft: the post-trial denial is stated as "early June (announced June 10)" because wire reporting places the ruling itself on Tuesday, June 9; the minute order settles it. Figures are as of the dates shown; legal characterizations are directional and for counsel to confirm.