SOCIAL media has become an integral part of modern life, reshaping how people communicate, learn, and interact. Social media apps have now evolved from being merely communication tools into platforms to express oneself, learn, and even influence other people. While social media provides more than just entertainment nowadays, its excessive use can also have harmful effects, especially on younger generations. Various studies have shown that excessive use of social media may significantly affect one’s mental health and well-being.
One behavior linked to excessive social media use is the so-called “doomscrolling,” which refers to the compulsive habit of spending extensive time consuming digital content, particularly negative or emotionally disturbing information. Rather than casually browsing social media, people find themselves continuously scrolling for hours, even if the content makes them feel anxious or emotionally exhausted.
The younger generations may be most vulnerable to doomscrolling because social media has become deeply integrated into their daily lives. The constant exposure to algorithmically recommended content, autoplay, infinite scrolling, and beauty filters may promote compulsive engagement, making it difficult to disengage from social media platforms. This raises a serious issue of whether social media platforms may be held liable for defective product designs that may contribute to addiction and mental health problems.
The case of K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al
This issue was discussed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the landmark case of K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., with the jury rendering its verdict on 25 March 2026. The case involved the plaintiff named Kaley Glenn-Mills (K.G.M.), who began using YouTube at the age of 6 and Instagram at the age of 9. Currently 20 years old, the plaintiff filed a case against defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. (Instagram), Snap, Inc. (Snapchat), ByteDance (TikTok), and Google/YouTube. However, TikTok and Snapchat decided to settle before trial.
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered personal injuries and emotional distress as a direct result of the use of defective social media products. She also testified that during her teenage years, her Instagram use reached as much as 16 hours per day. She further argued that these social media platforms were deliberately designed to promote addictive patterns of social media use, which she associated with serious mental health problems. Among the issues include anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. It also affected her self-worth due to digital validation, such as likes and follower counts. She claimed that various platform features were designed to encourage prolonged use, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmically personalized feeds, and notification systems.
The defendants responded by arguing that a causal link has not been scientifically proven. Moreover, there is no recognized clinical diagnosis of “social media addiction”. Meta argued that the mental health struggle of the plaintiff may have stemmed from a complex mix of personal circumstances. Meta emphasized that social media is not inherently harmful and cannot be reduced to a single cause of psychological distress. Google further argued that YouTube is not meaningfully “social media” in the same sense as Instagram and should not be treated as such for liability purposes, as it lacks social interaction features.
The jury ultimately found the defendants had been negligent in the design and operation of their platforms. The jury concluded that the platforms failed to warn users of associated risks and awarded the plaintiff USD3 million in compensatory damages and USD3 million in punitive damages.
The defendants subsequently challenged the verdict by filing post-trial motions, but these were denied. In July 2026, the defendants filed an appeal. Hence, the verdict remains subject to appellate review and is not yet the final resolution of the case.
The bottom line
As society becomes increasingly dependent on digital platforms, responsible use of technology remains essential. Given that Filipinos are among the most active and engaged social media users, responsible use of technology must be observed. Young users must learn and develop healthy digital habits, including managing screen time and exercising greater awareness of the content they consume and engage with online.
However, the responsibility should not entirely rest on individual users. The K.G.M case highlights the growing debate over whether technology companies should bear greater responsibility for platform features that allegedly encourage compulsive use and potentially contribute to mental health concerns.
Doomscrolling is not merely a matter of excessive use of screen time. It also raises broader questions about the design of the digital platforms which captures and maintain users’ attention. As these technologies continue to evolve, the challenge lies in promoting safer and healthier online environments while preserving the benefits of digital connectivity. Users must develop an informed understanding of how these platforms operate to develop mindful online habits. Simultaneously, technology companies should carefully consider the societal consequences of the products and features they create and design.
Ultimately, creating a healthy digital ecosystem is a shared responsibility between the users and the technology companies.
Weian Ge is a manager for the Tax Advisory & Compliance practice area at P&A Grant Thornton. One of the leading audit, tax, advisory, and outsourcing firms in the Philippines, P&A Grant Thornton is composed of 29 Partners and 1,500 staff members. We’d like to hear from you! Connect with us on LinkedIn and like us on Facebook: P&A Grant Thornton and email your comments to business.development@ph.gt.com. For more information, visit our website: www.grantthornton.com.ph.
