Social Media Addiction, Negligence, and the Law

By Okoi Obono-Obla

Social Media Addiction, Negligence, and the Law:

This is the age of social media technology, and our lives are shaped, influenced, and revolved around it to the extent that many of us are becoming addicted. Addiction means obsession—being unable to do anything without recourse to that thing. When you are addicted, it can affect your entire life.

If adults can be so deeply impacted by social media, what then should we expect of children and young people who are naturally vulnerable and impressionable? At their formative stage, addiction to social media can severely affect their mental health.

This was precisely the issue before a court in California, United States of America, in a case filed by the parents of a young girl. On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta (owner of Instagram) and Google (owner of YouTube) liable for negligence in a landmark social media addiction trial. The jury determined that both companies were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms, which served as a “substantial factor” in causing harm to a 20-year-old plaintiff (identified as KGM), who developed mental health struggles after prolonged use of the apps from a young age.

Key Findings:
– Negligence and Liability: Meta and YouTube designed platforms that were addictive and dangerous, failing to adequately warn users of these risks.
– Damages: The jury awarded $3 million in damages, with Meta assigned 70% responsibility ($2.1 million) and Google 30% ($900,000).
– Punitive Damages: The jury found that both companies acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud,” paving the way for additional punitive damages.
– Malice Finding: The court determined that the tech giants were aware of the harm but prioritized profit over safety.

Nigerian Legal Position:
Under Nigerian law of tort, negligence arises when someone who owes a duty of care breaches it, thereby exposing another to harm. If Meta were sued in Nigeria on a similar case, a Nigerian court could also find negligence. However, the U.S. case is not binding precedent in Nigeria. Nigerian courts are often reluctant to apply foreign cases as precedent, though such cases may serve as persuasive authority.

Conclusion:
The California case marks a turning point in holding tech companies accountable for the mental health impact of their platforms. While Nigerian courts may not be bound by this precedent, the persuasive value of such rulings could influence future decisions, especially as social media addiction becomes a pressing societal issue.