A landmark trial examining whether social media platforms are deliberately designed to addict children began this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case centers on claims that Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, owned by Google, knowingly built “addiction machines” that harm the mental health of young users. While TikTok and Snap were originally named in the lawsuit, they reached undisclosed settlements prior to the trial’s commencement.
The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., is a 19-year-old who alleges she suffered mental health issues, including depression, low self-esteem, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts, as a result of social media addiction developed during her childhood. The outcome of this case could set a legal precedent regarding the civil liability of social media operators, who have largely been shielded from such claims until now.
During opening arguments, attorney Mark Lanier, representing K.G.M., asserted that Meta and Google intentionally engineered their platforms to exploit the brains of children. “These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” Lanier told the court. He plans to present internal documents, including emails from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and YouTube executives, to demonstrate this alleged intentionality.
Lanier highlighted a 2015 email from Zuckerberg demanding a 12% increase in “time spent” on Meta platforms to meet internal business goals. This, according to Lanier, illustrates a deliberate focus on maximizing user engagement, even at the expense of mental well-being. He also pointed to YouTube’s alleged targeting of younger users, arguing that the platform could “charge advertisers more” compared to its YouTube Kids version.
Lawyers representing Meta and YouTube countered that K.G.M.’s addiction stemmed from pre-existing issues in her life, not from negligence on their part. They aim to demonstrate that the platforms were not the sole cause of her mental health struggles.
The trial is considered a bellwether case, meaning its outcome could influence hundreds of similar lawsuits pending against social media companies across the United States. These lawsuits collectively accuse the platforms of contributing to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalizations, and even suicides among young users.
The legal strategy employed by the plaintiffs draws parallels to the litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s and 2000s, which ultimately resulted in significant financial penalties and regulatory changes. The plaintiffs are attempting to establish a link between the addictive design of social media platforms and demonstrable harm to users, similar to the established link between smoking and lung cancer.
The defense attempted to prevent comparisons between social media and addictive substances like tobacco, but the court allowed the argument to proceed. This suggests the jury will be permitted to consider the platforms’ design features in the context of addictive behaviors.
Key executives from Meta and Google are scheduled to testify, including Mark Zuckerberg on , Instagram head Adam Mosseri starting , and YouTube CEO Neil Mohan. Their testimony is expected to be crucial in determining whether the companies prioritized user engagement over user safety.
The core of the argument revolves around the design of the platforms themselves. Lanier described Instagram as an “endless feed” designed to encourage users to seek “social validation,” while characterizing YouTube’s algorithm as a system that continuously serves content to keep users engaged, regardless of their preferences or needs. This constant stream of content, Lanier argues, is intentionally designed to be addictive.
The case also highlights the broader debate surrounding the responsibility of social media companies for the well-being of their users. While the platforms maintain that they are not responsible for the content posted by users, the plaintiffs argue that the algorithms used to curate and deliver that content are inherently harmful. The legal challenge centers on whether these algorithms constitute a product defect, making the companies liable for the resulting harm.
A parallel case against Meta concerning the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media is also underway in New Mexico. This further underscores the increasing scrutiny faced by the tech industry regarding its impact on vulnerable populations.
