Meta vs. Google Trial: Who is Responsible for Social Networks?

You open Instagram because you want to look at a single message.

You'll soon find that you've been scrolling through videos for twenty minutes that you didn't originally want to see.

Another video. Another recommendation. Another warning.

An adult usually has at least an idea of what is happening. With a child, the situation is more complicated.

And the question is, whether some social networks are designed to keep us on them as long as possible, came before a US court this year.

The result is worth attention here too.

Not because we should ban Instagram or YouTube because of it. But because it could change the way we think about the responsibility of tech companies.

What happened in the USA?

The case involved a young woman, appearing in court under the initials KGM, who claimed she had started using social media as a child and had gradually developed an addictive use of it that contributed to her psychological problems.

The lawsuit involved four major platforms:

• Meta's Instagram,
• Google's YouTube,
• TikTok,
• Snapchat.

TikTok and Snapchat reached agreements with the plaintiff before the trial began. The terms of those agreements are not public.

Meta and Google ultimately stood before the jury.

On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in the design and operation of Instagram and YouTube, and found that their actions were a significant factor in the harm suffered by the individual plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded a total of $6 million – $4.2 million went to Meta and $1.8 million to Google.

But that's not the end of the story. Both Meta and Google have announced that they will appeal the verdict.

Still, this case is important.

This time it wasn't just about what kids watch online

This is, in my opinion, the most interesting part of the whole case.

When we talk about the risks of social networks, we usually deal with content.

What are the children watching?

Who will they run into?

What videos does the algorithm recommend to them?

This time, however, the court's attention was also focused on something else.

The very way the platforms are designed.

For example, infinite scrolling, automatic playback of the next video, recommendation algorithms, or notifications that bring us back to the application.

Individually, these features seem quite innocent.

But together they create an environment that can be difficult to leave.

Try telling your child:

„"Then turn it off."“

And you will get the answer:

„"One more video."“

Maybe you know it yourself.

So who is to blame for this?

I would be careful with simple conclusions here.

The ruling does not mean that social media automatically causes psychological problems for every child.

And it doesn't mean that parents don't have any responsibility.

But it is no longer enough to say:

„"Then the child shouldn't go there."“

If a product is designed to motivate people to use it for as long as possible, part of the responsibility may also lie with its creator.

That is what is being argued about today.

What about TikTok and Snapchat?

It would be a mistake to make the whole case a story only about Instagram and YouTube.

TikTok and Snapchat were originally among the defendants, but in this particular case, they settled with the plaintiff before the trial began, so the jury did not decide on their liability.

That's an important difference.

It cannot be inferred from the conclusion of the agreement that the companies admitted liability.

At the same time, however, these are not the last lawsuits these companies face.

Thousands of similar cases are currently pending in the US against Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap. Individuals, US states and school districts are suing.

On August 10, 2026, a U.S. appeals court denied Meta and TikTok’s early appeals. In effect, this means that more than 3,000 federal lawsuits can proceed.

However, the court has not yet decided whether their claims are justified.

So it's not about one Instagram, one child, or one court.

A much broader question begins to be addressed:

What responsibility do companies have for how they design their digital products?

Why is it so hard to just put down the phone?

The term "habitual design" is often used.

It sounds a bit academic, but the principle is simple.

Imagine a classic newspaper page.

You will reach its end.

Done.

There is no end to social media.

You scroll and the next content loads automatically. You finish a video and the next one starts immediately. And as the algorithm gradually learns what interests you, the content becomes more and more tailored to you.

There will be a warning about that.

Someone responded.

You have a new message.

A new video has appeared.

Each individual function may make sense. The problem may arise from their combination.

Therefore, I find the more interesting question:

Not "how many hours does the child use the phone", but What does he actually do to him during those few hours and why is it so hard for him to stop?.

Banning cell phones in schools only solves part of the problem

This debate is also related to the current discussions about banning mobile phones in schools.

The purpose of the ban is, among other things, to limit disruptions during classes.

But school ends at two in the afternoon.

The phone returns to your hand and the digital environment remains the same.

That's why the ban itself seems to me to be one part of the solution, not the whole solution.

In addition to rules, we need to teach children to understand, Why are some apps so hard to put down?.

This is a skill they will use even when today's TikTok or Instagram is replaced by a completely different service.

Schools are also entering the dispute

It's not just individuals and families who are filing lawsuits against tech companies. In the US, school districts have also joined in.

In the US, school districts have also joined the lawsuits.

They claim that they have to spend money and other resources to address students' psychological problems, which, according to the lawsuits, are related to problematic use of social media.

One Kentucky school district, for example, reached a settlement with Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube in 2026 totaling approximately $27 million.

Here too, the companies did not admit responsibility.

But there are over a thousand similar lawsuits filed by American school districts.

And this is where the legal dispute between technology companies becomes a topic that is also relevant for regular schools or parents.

I don't think the solution is to take technology away from children.

In training sessions, we often come across the same question with parents:

„"How much time is too much?"“

But I don't think the universal number is the most important answer.

If you are considering how to help your children develop a healthier relationship with technology at home, I will discuss this in more detail in the article How to raise children in the online age.

Two hours of video chat with friends is different than two hours of mindlessly scrolling through short videos.

And an hour of creating a presentation or editing a video is different than an hour of waiting for the next notification.

Therefore, I would focus less on the screen itself and more on, what the child does on it and how he behaves.

Can the app turn itself off?

Does he automatically pick up the phone whenever he has a free moment?

Does your phone interfere with sleep, school, or time together?

Is the child comfortable or irritable after using the app?

These are much more interesting questions to me than the number of minutes itself.

And the same question awaits us with AI

Today we talk a lot about what artificial intelligence can do.

Generates text.

It creates images.

It helps with learning.

He answers questions.

But perhaps in a few years we will be dealing with a similar issue as we are today with social networks.

How are AI services designed and how do they influence our behavior?

Will the AI assistant's goal really be to solve my problem and let me go?

Or will his goal be to keep me in the app as long as possible?

We don't know yet.

But experience with social networks shows that it is a good idea to ask this question today.

What to take away from the article

The lawsuit against Meta and Google is not important to me because of the six million dollars.

It is important because, What did the court start asking?.

Not only:

„"What content was on the social network?"“

But also:

„"How was the social network designed?"“

That's a big difference.

This doesn't mean that social media is bad.

It also does not mean that parents and schools cease to bear responsibility.

This means that the responsibility for the healthy use of digital technologies probably does not lie on just one side.

Technology companies, schools, and parents all have their share of responsibility. And gradually, children themselves must also take it on.

What parents can do first

I wouldn't start with a ban.

Sit down with your child sometime and show them the app they use most often.

Don't spend the first ten minutes deciding whether it's good or bad.

Ask:

„"Why did she show you this particular video?"“

„"What happens when you scroll down?"“

„"Why did you get this warning?"“

„"How do you know when you want to quit?"“

The goal is not to control the child.

The goal is to teach him to notice, how the app tries to get his attention.

And what can schools do?

I would do the same at school.

In addition to the rules for using mobile phones, I would include a simple explanation of how social networks work in digital literacy.

It doesn't have to be another subject.

Just take one application and analyze it together with your students:

• why is there no end,
• how it selects other content,
• why is it sending a warning,
• how he makes money,
• why it needs our attention.

In my opinion, a child who understands these principles has a better chance of using technology consciously.

And that is a skill that no phone ban alone can replace.

Resources

When preparing the article, I based my work primarily on Reuters' reporting on the lawsuit and subsequent cases in the USA:

• Reuters, March 25, 2026: What exactly did the jury decide in the Meta vs. Google case? – details of the verdict, Meta and Google's liability, the distribution of damages, and the jury's conclusions regarding Instagram and YouTube.
• Reuters, March 25, 2026: Verdict in the trial against Meta and Google over the impact of social networks – report on the outcome of the main trial in Los Angeles.
• Reuters, August 10, 2026: More than 3,000 lawsuits against social media operators may continue – US appeals court decision regarding federal lawsuits against Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap.
• Reuters, May 29, 2026: Tech companies settle with Kentucky school district – information about Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube agreements worth a total of approximately $27 million.