The potential for significant legal repercussions for social media companies is intensifying, with multiple lawsuits now moving forward that allege deliberate strategies to addict young users. These cases, brought by both school districts and individual plaintiffs, center on claims that platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat prioritize engagement over the mental well-being of children and adolescents.
On , opening statements began in a landmark civil trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case involves a 19-year-old plaintiff, identified only as “KGM,” who alleges that her depression and anxiety were directly caused by addictive features within Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube. This trial is considered a bellwether case, meaning its outcome could significantly influence the trajectory of thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies.
The core argument presented by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, is that these platforms “engineered addiction in children’s brains,” deliberately designing features to maximize user engagement, even at the expense of mental health. Lanier likened the platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, asserting that the companies knowingly created mechanisms to keep young people glued to their screens. He characterized the case as “easy as ABC,” an acronym he explained stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He presented internal documents, studies, and emails from Meta and Google as evidence of this intentional design.
The lawsuit alleges that platforms utilize features designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, leading to compulsive use and negative mental health outcomes. While TikTok and Snap initially faced similar claims, they have since settled for undisclosed sums, leaving Meta and Google as the remaining defendants in this initial trial.
Meta’s legal team countered by highlighting the ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the very definition of “social media addiction.” They argued that some researchers do not believe addiction is an appropriate term to describe heavy social media use, suggesting a disagreement on the fundamental nature of the issue. However, the plaintiffs maintain that the platforms’ actions constitute a public nuisance, forcing schools to allocate resources to address the mental health consequences experienced by students.
This concern extends beyond individual cases, as over 1,200 school districts across the country have filed similar complaints. These districts claim that the design of social media platforms harms student mental health and necessitates increased spending on counseling services and program adaptations to support students struggling with anxiety, depression, and distraction. The total potential compensation claimed by these districts is estimated at $500 billion, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.
A federal judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, recently ruled in favor of the school districts, finding that they had provided a “reasonable explanation” of how social media features harmed both students and schools. The first trial related to these school district claims is scheduled to begin in June .
The legal battles are also challenging the protections afforded to social media companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law generally shields internet platforms from liability for content posted by their users. However, lawyers representing the school districts argue that their claims are not based on user-generated content, but rather on the platforms’ intentionally addictive features. They contend that these features are designed to maximize time spent on the platforms, regardless of the harm they may cause.
This argument mirrors concerns recently raised by the European Commission, which accuses TikTok of failing to adequately protect its users, particularly minors, from the addictive mechanisms within its application. The Commission alleges that TikTok is in violation of its Digital Services Act (DSA) and faces a potential substantial fine if it does not fundamentally alter its practices.
The outcome of these trials could establish a significant legal precedent regarding the civil liability of social media operators, who have largely been exempt from such claims until now. The Los Angeles case, along with approximately twenty other “pilot” cases, will serve as a reference point for lawyers on both sides as they navigate potential group negotiations and future litigation. The central question remains whether social media companies can be held accountable for the mental health consequences experienced by young users, and whether their design choices prioritize profit over well-being.
Clay Calvert, a law professor and expert affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, explains that the schools argue the platforms create a public nuisance. “Schools say they have had to deal with minors suffering from all kinds of mental health problems. students are distracted, stressed, suffer from anxiety, depression,” he said. “They had to adapt their school programs, provide counselors.”
