Google-owned YouTube has settled a social media addiction lawsuit brought by a Florida teen who accused the video-sharing giant of helping fuel a youth mental health crisis through features designed to keep kids glued to their screens.

The confidential settlement, reached just weeks before trial, appeared to mark another setback for Big Tech companies facing mounting legal pressure over claims that their platforms are engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of young users’ well-being.

The plaintiff, identified in court filings only as RKC, alleged that YouTube and other social media companies deliberately designed products to be addictive through features such as autoplay and infinite scroll that continuously feed users new content.

Google confirmed the settlement on Monday.

“This matter has been amicably resolved and our focus remains on building age-appropriate products and parental controls that deliver on that promise,” Google spokesman José Castañeda said in a statement.

The settlement removes YouTube from a closely watched California trial that is currently scheduled to begin July 27 in Los Angeles.

RKC’s lawsuit against Meta, TikTok parent ByteDance and Snap remains active.

The case is the second bellwether trial overseen by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl as part of a broader effort to resolve more than 1,000 similar lawsuits filed in California alleging social media platforms harmed children through addictive product design.

The litigation has emerged as one of the biggest legal threats facing the social media industry.

Plaintiffs across the country claim tech companies knowingly exploited children’s psychological vulnerabilities to increase engagement, advertising revenue and time spent on their apps.

RKC’s allegations closely mirror those raised in the first bellwether case earlier this year.

That trial was brought by a California woman identified as KGM who accused Meta and YouTube of intentionally designing products that fostered compulsive use among young people.

Snap and TikTok settled before that case reached a jury.

In March, jurors awarded KGM $6 million after finding Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health effects their platforms had on certain users.

The verdict marked the first time a jury held the companies legally responsible for harms tied to social media addiction claims.

The same week, another jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding the company misled users about the safety of its platforms for children.

RKC alleges that YouTube’s design features contributed to compulsive use that led to anxiety, sleep deprivation and other mental health problems.

Google has rejected claims that YouTube was irresponsibly designed.

Last month, YouTube, Meta, Snap and TikTok settled another case that was headed to trial in federal court in California.

That lawsuit was brought by a Kentucky school district that accused the companies of contributing to a student mental health crisis through addictive platform features.

Matthew A. Dolman, founder and senior partner of Dolman Law Group, told The Post that YouTube’s decision to settle likely reflected both the strength of the teen’s case and the company’s comparatively limited exposure relative to the remaining defendants.

Dolman said the settlement could embolden plaintiffs’ lawyers pursuing similar claims against social media companies.

“This settlement only reiterates that blood is in the water,” he told The Post.

“The previous Los Angeles verdict following the first bellwether trial on what was admittedly a much weaker case demonstrates that the legal arguments related to screen addiction of children and the negligent design of these platforms (based on algorithms designed to addict) creates significant exposure to these tech companies.”

Looking ahead, Dolman said the growing wave of litigation could ultimately force tech companies to rethink some of the engagement features at the center of the lawsuits.

“The goal is to make these very features cost prohibitive to Google, Meta, Snap & TikTok. However, these entities led by Meta are spending a fortune on lobbyists pushing for legislation to cap their collective liability and to preempt individual claims for damages.”

Jonathan Alpert, a psychotherapist and author, told The Post the litigation is increasingly focused on platform design rather than user behavior.

“The question is no longer whether social media can affect mental health. The bigger question is where personal responsibility ends and product design begins,” he said.

“Every settlement and verdict sends a message. If they see companies writing checks instead of fighting these cases to the end, more lawsuits will likely follow,” Alpert added.