A landmark trial examining the potential harms of social media on children began this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court, pitting Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google, owner of YouTube, against plaintiffs alleging deliberate addiction and subsequent harm. While TikTok and Snap initially faced similar claims, both companies have settled for undisclosed amounts, leaving Meta and Google as the remaining defendants in this closely watched case.
The case centers around a 19-year-old identified as “KGM,” whose experiences are intended to serve as a bellwether for potentially thousands of similar lawsuits. Alongside two other plaintiffs, KGM’s case will be closely scrutinized by both sides to gauge jury reaction and potential damages, according to Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Opening statements revealed sharply contrasting narratives. Attorney Mark Lanier, representing the plaintiffs, likened social media platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, arguing that Meta and Google “engineered addiction in children’s brains.” Lanier presented internal documents, emails, and studies from both companies, including Meta’s own “Project Myst,” which surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about social media usage. According to Lanier, Project Myst revealed that children experiencing “difficult events” – such as trauma or stress – were particularly vulnerable to developing addictive behaviors on these platforms, and that parental controls had limited effectiveness.
Lanier also highlighted internal Google documents comparing certain products to casinos, and Meta employee communications where Instagram was described as “like a drug” and its creators as “essentially drug dealers.” He described KGM’s early adoption of the platforms, beginning with YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and noted she had published 284 videos on YouTube before even finishing elementary school.
The defense countered with a focus on KGM’s pre-existing mental health challenges. Paul Schmidt, representing Meta, argued that the central question of the trial is whether the platforms played a significant role in KGM’s mental health issues. He pointed to KGM’s medical records, detailing experiences with psychological abuse, body image concerns, and bullying. Schmidt cited testimony from one of KGM’s mental health professionals, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who stated that social media was “not central” to KGM’s primary problems, attributing them instead to interpersonal conflicts and relationships.
Schmidt also emphasized the disagreement within the scientific community regarding the concept of “social media addiction,” noting that some researchers dispute its existence or question whether “addiction” is the appropriate term. He pointed out that three of KGM’s mental health professionals, while believing in the possibility of social media addiction, had never actually diagnosed KGM with it.
Luis Li, representing YouTube and Google, focused on KGM’s actual usage data, stating her average viewing time over five years was just 29 minutes per day. He specifically highlighted that she spent an average of only one minute and fourteen seconds per day watching YouTube Shorts, the platform’s short-form vertical video format, which Lanier had identified as a key driver of addictive behavior.
Li further argued that all features of YouTube criticized by Lanier could be disabled or customized by users. He presented approximately 10,000 pages of KGM’s medical records, asserting that they contained “not a single example” of KGM being addicted to YouTube, and that the only mention of the platform was a note from her doctor stating she used it to help fall asleep when experiencing anxiety.
The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks and will likely feature testimony from high-profile executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Lanier anticipates the defense will attempt to “blame the little girl and her parents,” given KGM was a minor when she allegedly became addicted to social media and experienced resulting mental health impacts.
The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for the business practices of Meta and Google, and for how they manage children’s access to their platforms. Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, emphasized the broader implications, stating, “This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products.”
