A California judge has let stand a $6 million jury verdict against Meta and Google, rejecting bids to overturn a March 25 decision that found both companies liable for negligently designing social media platforms in ways that fueled a young user’s addiction and mental health problems. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on June 10, preserving damages of $4.2 million against Meta and $1.8 million against Google’s YouTube in K.G.M. v. Meta et al. The ruling is significant because the court accepted a distinction that is becoming central in social media litigation: the case focused on product design rather than user-generated content. That meant Section 230 (U.S. law shielding platforms from many content-related claims) did not bar the suit, and the companies’ First Amendment defenses also failed because the challenged features, including notifications and recommendation algorithms, were treated as platform design choices rather than protected editorial speech. The defense argument on causation also failed to persuade the jury after evidence focused on engagement-driven features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmically curated feeds. The decision adds to broader legal pressure on large platforms, coming shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on May 26 to hear Meta’s appeal in a separate Vermont attorney general case over Instagram’s allegedly addictive features, allowing that matter to continue in lower courts. Meta and YouTube have said they prioritize user safety and offer tools such as parental controls, time limits, restricted mode, and other safeguards for minors. The broader risk for the companies is that government-led cases could seek injunctive relief (court-ordered changes), potentially forcing changes to how platforms are designed rather than imposing only monetary damages.