The settlement shifts a major Los Angeles trial toward Snapchat’s engagement features, as thousands of lawsuits challenge whether social media platforms contribute to depression, eating disorders and other harms among young users.
Meta Platforms has settled with a second teenage plaintiff who accused the company of designing Instagram and Facebook to encourage addictive use, leaving Snapchat parent Snap Inc. as the remaining defendant in a closely watched Los Angeles trial.
The October 30 settlement resolves claims brought by K.D.B., an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi, after Meta reached a separate agreement with S.J., a 16-year-old girl from Illinois.
Both plaintiffs previously settled with TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube. Financial terms of the latest Meta agreements were not disclosed.
The developments narrow a legal proceeding that could influence thousands of similar cases challenging social media platform design and its alleged effects on young people’s mental health.
Social Media Design Faces Legal Scrutiny
According to Reuters’ earlier reporting on the trial, S.J. and K.D.B. alleged that they began using YouTube at approximately ages three or four and other social media platforms around age nine.
They claimed that features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling encouraged compulsive use, contributing to depression, anxiety and eating disorders.
The allegations remain disputed and do not establish that the platforms caused those conditions.
Jury selection began October 28 in Los Angeles Superior Court, with Judge Carolyn Kuhl overseeing proceedings involving the plaintiffs’ claims.
The case is among thousands of lawsuits filed by individuals, families, school districts and government entities challenging technology companies’ approaches to younger users.
Snapchat Remains the Sole Defendant
With Meta’s settlements completed, both plaintiffs are continuing their claims against Snap.
As ABC7 Los Angeles reported, the plaintiffs allege that Snapchat’s Snapstreaks, Snapscores, push notifications and filters were designed to increase the time young users spend on the application.
Snap rejects those allegations, arguing that Snapchat differs from traditional social media because it opens to a camera rather than a content feed.
The company also maintains that it has introduced safety tools, educational resources and additional protections for younger users.
Opening statements against Snap are scheduled for the following week.
Meta Maintains Its Position on Teen Safety
Attorney Emily Jeffcott, representing K.D.B., welcomed the settlement and reiterated her commitment to improving children’s online safety and holding technology companies accountable.
According to CBS News, Meta said it would continue defending its practices in other litigation and pointed to safety measures developed over more than a decade.
The company also highlighted its agreement with 52 bipartisan attorneys general, which includes stricter time restrictions, nighttime access limitations and controls on school-hour notifications.
The latest settlement follows a separate March 2026 Los Angeles verdict in which a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and awarded a young woman $6 million in damages. Meta is appealing that decision.
Why the Case Matters for Technology Companies
The litigation raises questions about whether engagement-maximizing product features could expose technology companies to liability when users allege resulting psychological harm.
Features such as continuous feeds, notifications and engagement streaks are important to platform retention strategies. However, their effects on younger users are receiving increasing legal scrutiny.
The proceedings could also influence how developers approach age-appropriate interfaces, engagement metrics and safety-by-design requirements.
Because the cases were selected as test proceedings, their outcomes may shape negotiations and litigation strategies in other disputes.
For social media founders and product leaders, the central issue is no longer simply how platforms attract and retain users, but whether their engagement mechanisms can withstand closer scrutiny over user well-being and corporate responsibility.
